Somehow, all I seem to be blogging about recently is the suicidal folly of conservative bloggers

[fpb]

President Obama has behaved well in the matter of torture. He has published the memos that authorized them, including the names of their authors, but has refused to prosecute anyone himself. The option still exists for any organization or citizen to sue, especially, the lawyers who debased the rule of law by judging that specific forms of torture were allowable under US law; but as the President said, it would be wrong to prosecute people lower down the pole, who had received authorization - and as good as orders - from above to do as they did.

It is a common argument that prisoners in Guantanamo were and are treated well, probably better than the average jailed American (or British, or Italian) citizen. That is not so surprising when one realizes the bizarre compromises with conscience that American legislators and bureaucrats have inflicted on the nation; like that a small minority of probably quite unlucky murderers (most American murderers receive life or shorter sentences) can get killed, but only after an appeals process that can last twenty years; that the man who is to receive a lethal injection has the injection area carefully disinfected first - for fear, one supposes, that the corpse could suffer from an infection. The intersection of a never abandoned instinct for brutality with an obstinate set of rights set in stone produces the most bizarre results, and to have a system that at the same time guarantees its inmate three meals a day, Qur'an and any other book they may want to read (apparently Harry Potter is a great favourite), exercise and TV, while also allowing brutal "interrogation techniques" and the chance of being delivered to loving fellow-countrymen whose techniques are apt to be even harsher - it is nothing but a typical product of this strange mind. That, as such, is not surprising.

What I do find surprising is that, at this time of day, there still are responsible adults, capable of walking on two feet and of writing decent English, who would deny that what the bureaucratic scum allowed was torture. Forget that one prisoner seems to have been subjected to waterboarding for more than 250 times - and that after he had already talked without any stimulation. What really shocked me was to find that one of the "techniques" in question was sleep deprivation for up to a week. You try it, ladies and gentlemen. You try it for two days, and tell me whether it is not torture. And tell me, too, whether a man who has been subjected to seven days of this abomination will be in a state to answer elaborate questions in a sane and coherent manner. It is not just an abomination morally; it is also complete idiocy from the standpoint of results. Only a diseased intellect could think that it is not torture, or that it is justified.

And this is what conservative bloggers have been defending all over the internet. Well, gentlemen, I hope you like your Obama presidency, because if you carry on as you are, you will have him for a good long time.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As for Obama himself, I have an intense dislike for a leader who takes upon himself to punish his own subordinates. Those people may be good or may be bad, but they have a right to expect loyalty from their superiors if they themselves are loyal to them. I would look on an Obama who started prosecuting low-level personnel, even for serious crimes, as suspect of hitting on those weaker than himself for political advantage. As it is, he has left the door open for anyone else to do it.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

As for Obama himself, I have an intense dislike for a leader who takes upon himself to punish his own subordinates. Those people may be good or may be bad, but they have a right to expect loyalty from their superiors if they themselves are loyal to them.

Hm, I think I'm misunderstanding something here. Doesn't a leader have a duty to attend to the discipline of his subordinates?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That may be the case in warfare. In peacetime conditions, it smacks of vindictiveness and buck-passing (remember Harry S - The Buck Stops Here). The first instinct of a leader ought to be to protect his people; even if they have done wrong, to at least insure that a reasonable defence, within the limits of law and decency, is afforded them. If he discards them along the way, he leaves the impression of a man willing to feed his underlings to the wolves to cover himself. That, by the way, is one reason why we have a separation of powers. It is much more dignified, and much less full of traps and blind alleys, to have an independent judidiciary that can investigate and impartially punish the misdeeds of public servants.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

I agree regarding the importance of leaving the ultimate question of guilt and punishment to the judiciary in civilian/peacetime situations. However, isn't it still the job of the Attorney General or his delegates (i.e. the Executive branch) to bring charges in such cases?

On the other hand (with the exception of CIA personnel and civilian contractors), we are also talking in part about acts committed by military personnel in the context of an ongoing war.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

On the other hand (with the exception of CIA personnel and civilian contractors), we are also talking in part about acts committed by military personnel in the context of an ongoing war.

Though, my understanding is that the military actors are already being dealt with by military tribunals, at least in cases where their actions resulted in death.

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

Yes, that is definitely one way to look at it, and in that light, I can agree with you, and with him.