A Sharp Legal Mind
From the written answers to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, a picture of our next Attorney General.
But wait, he seems to sense that response isn't enough. It won't stand on its own. Deploy the bafflegab!
And we wouldn't want them to be able to resist our interrogation techniques, because they are so reliable. For example, who in the world would tell lies just to get out of a pile of their own urine and feces?
However, since the press has already reported that we're using that technique, the question today becomes, is it right or wrong? Either it was right, in which case the supposed Terrorist Academy will continue training against it, as they already are, or it was wrong, and we'll stop it, prosecute those involved, and let the Terrorist Academy use that class hour for something else. At most we keep the terrorists from wasting time training to resist a technique we don't use. And we regain a bit of moral clarity.
And even that assumes that the Terrorist Academy professors believe anything the adminstration says, and shape their curriculum based on such answers. So far, I'd say evidence is against it. If they are, in fact, training people to resist cigarette burns, I don't think they'll stop just because Al Gonzales tells Mr. Kennedy it's unlawful. I'm pretty sure they have about as much faith that laws are being painstakingly followed in those detention cells as many of the rest of us.
(All of which exists outside of concepts of morality, and whether or not we wish to stoop to brutality. I thought we'd long ago decided that, even if it meant that the enemy would train its people to resist non-torture interrogation, we would rule out torture. It's that idea about not doing something because it is inhuman, and we are a moral people who choose not to act that way because it degrades us and all we stand for. We chose to not be inhuman monsters. I guess such notions are "quaint.")
But wait. He's not really sure that bit of puffery provides sufficient cover. So he continues:
Who was that guy? And what department is he supposed to head, again? Oh, yeah, Al Gonzales and the Justice Department. Odd that anyone would be asking about it now, then, isn't it? Giving them an answer would obviously be inappropriate.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know if you noticed, but by saying that Justice has concluded they were lawful, he just demolished the whole "I don't want to give al Qaida training information" argument. Whoops. That cat's out of the bag! Professor Akbar, continue with Cigarette Burns 101!
Unless he's asserting that the specific techniques in the question haven't been reviewed by Justice? You'll notice he said "specific techniques used", not "all techniques" or "those specific techniques." Maybe Justice was asked to review tickling, or withholding dessert, and found that those were lawful under the statute. But if Justice hasn't reviewed the techniques Kennedy is asking about, then it becomes even more germane to know the views of the prospective AG on the subject!
Gonzales, you're brilliant! Only you could provide a case for why you should answer the question as an excuse for not answering the question. You give the impression that everything is OK, and that the Justice Department is watching over things, while actually saying nothing of the kind. And nobody noticed! This is a move almost as tricky as that one you pulled back in Texas to keep W. from having to publicly admit his drunk driving arrest.
Yes, good ol' W. The man who just said:"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character, on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives." No wonder they get along so well.
KENNEDY: The FBI e-mails produced in the ACLU lawsuit include reports that detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo have suffered from the following abuses: Detainees were bound hand and foot and left in urine and feces for 18-24 hours; cigarette burns were inflicted; detainees were exposed to extreme temperatures for prolonged periods; enemas were forced on detainees.It would be inappropriate? For the candidate for Attorney General to respond to a direct question from a US Senator performing his Constitutionally-mandated role to advise and consent on the appointment? What? Who does he think he is? He's telling the Senate what is and isn't "appropriate?" That isn't his prerogative, and asserting that it is shows even more of his bad legal reasoning. (That he got away with it shows how much of an Imperial Presidency we have slipped into.) What will he deem it "inappropriate" to answer when he's actually Attorney General?
Do you believe any of these practices were or are lawful interrogation techniques or lawful detainee management?
GONZALES: I found those e-mails to be shocking and deeply troubling. While I share a revulsion to the use of practices such as those described, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to address reports of interrogation practices discussed in the press and attempt to analyze whether such reported practices are lawful.
But wait, he seems to sense that response isn't enough. It won't stand on its own. Deploy the bafflegab!
In addition, were the administration to begin ruling out speculated interrogation practices in public, by virtue of gradually ruling out some practices in response to repeated questions and not ruling out others, we would fairly rapidly provide al Qaida with a road map concerning the interrogation that captured terrorists can expect to face, and would enable al Qaida to improve its counter-interrogation training to match it.He cleverly implies that he has a good reason for refusing to answer. He drags us into a bizarre amoral "game theory" world, where there is an unquantified hypothetical possibility that his answer, when combined with dozens of other hypothetical answers to hypothetical questions, might, to an unspecified degree, improve the imagined training of al Qaida operatives, which might make it harder for us to interrogate them, assuming we caught some, and used those techniques they'd figured out we were using.
And we wouldn't want them to be able to resist our interrogation techniques, because they are so reliable. For example, who in the world would tell lies just to get out of a pile of their own urine and feces?
However, since the press has already reported that we're using that technique, the question today becomes, is it right or wrong? Either it was right, in which case the supposed Terrorist Academy will continue training against it, as they already are, or it was wrong, and we'll stop it, prosecute those involved, and let the Terrorist Academy use that class hour for something else. At most we keep the terrorists from wasting time training to resist a technique we don't use. And we regain a bit of moral clarity.
And even that assumes that the Terrorist Academy professors believe anything the adminstration says, and shape their curriculum based on such answers. So far, I'd say evidence is against it. If they are, in fact, training people to resist cigarette burns, I don't think they'll stop just because Al Gonzales tells Mr. Kennedy it's unlawful. I'm pretty sure they have about as much faith that laws are being painstakingly followed in those detention cells as many of the rest of us.
(All of which exists outside of concepts of morality, and whether or not we wish to stoop to brutality. I thought we'd long ago decided that, even if it meant that the enemy would train its people to resist non-torture interrogation, we would rule out torture. It's that idea about not doing something because it is inhuman, and we are a moral people who choose not to act that way because it degrades us and all we stand for. We chose to not be inhuman monsters. I guess such notions are "quaint.")
But wait. He's not really sure that bit of puffery provides sufficient cover. So he continues:
The Department of Justice has been asked to review specific interrogation practices used in the conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban and has concluded that they are lawful under the torture statute.Oh. The Justice Department "has concluded that they are lawful under the torture statute." Well. End of discussion. QED. The Justice Department said they were lawful, so they must be. They couldn't possibly be wrong. Or change their position. Say, in the week just before a certain man came before the committee? Like, perhaps the man who produced a highly suspect interpretation on applicability of the torture statues? And this Justice Department review happened when? Under the old standards? Hmm.
Who was that guy? And what department is he supposed to head, again? Oh, yeah, Al Gonzales and the Justice Department. Odd that anyone would be asking about it now, then, isn't it? Giving them an answer would obviously be inappropriate.
Oh, and by the way, I don't know if you noticed, but by saying that Justice has concluded they were lawful, he just demolished the whole "I don't want to give al Qaida training information" argument. Whoops. That cat's out of the bag! Professor Akbar, continue with Cigarette Burns 101!
Unless he's asserting that the specific techniques in the question haven't been reviewed by Justice? You'll notice he said "specific techniques used", not "all techniques" or "those specific techniques." Maybe Justice was asked to review tickling, or withholding dessert, and found that those were lawful under the statute. But if Justice hasn't reviewed the techniques Kennedy is asking about, then it becomes even more germane to know the views of the prospective AG on the subject!
Gonzales, you're brilliant! Only you could provide a case for why you should answer the question as an excuse for not answering the question. You give the impression that everything is OK, and that the Justice Department is watching over things, while actually saying nothing of the kind. And nobody noticed! This is a move almost as tricky as that one you pulled back in Texas to keep W. from having to publicly admit his drunk driving arrest.
Yes, good ol' W. The man who just said:"In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character, on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives." No wonder they get along so well.
posted by Paul at 11:51 AM |
|
email this
