|
you know, slims, there's the problem of torture at all. that it is used. this is a big problem, this is the central legal issue, really--but it's also a political issue, and a corrosive political issue.
then there's the problem of its frequency of use---over the past week it came out that some of the main suspects were subjected to such treatment over and over and over again.
at the same time, i don't see any reason for you to assume that because torture was used that therefore only torture was used. i don't see anyone arguing in that direction, nor is there evidence that this was the case---but in certain situations, certain people, it was used and used alot.
it was the official policy of the bush administration that torture be used.
if you ask me personally, i'd tell you that i think there should be charges brought against entire command chains over this.
if you ask me what i think will happen, i'd say that the prosecution of people for developing, implementing and carrying out this policy will be complicated procedurally and politically, and i think the administration would have preferred not to find itself under such pressure to continue pressing the matter because of that. i've already outlined why i think this poses such problems, and why i think it logical that an international war crimes tribunal do the prosecuting.
another way of posing these questions: prosecution for this particular crime against humanity does not lend itself to any version of the "bad apple"theory that folk are so fond of as a way of dealing with a Situation while enabling themselves to act as though nothing structurally is wrong. this points to significant structural problems--not only at the level of to what extent was what the bush people did legitimate and to what extent was it not--in other words, how far does the power of the executive really extend---this is a problem in that a case brought for torture could easily end up in a fight over the definition of executive power, what it is, how it is defined, whether certain conceptions of executive power have to be ruled out in the american political context--or whether there might be system changes required to put a brake on executive power in other ways.....then there's the problem of what is an illegal order...then there's the problem of the extent to which there are problems with bureaucratic organization itself because it seems that such organizations are almost entirely incapable to implementing checks on policy internally--know what i mean? whatever is determined to be the rational goal of an apparatus becomes what is administered and ethical problems are either compartmentalized away or they're dealt with via requests for policy change when you get around to it thanks very much but in the meantime we'll be doing what you ask...
so while i absolutely think there should be consequences for this slide into fascism lite, in the end we'll see what happens.
this is only cut and dry pragmatically if you don't take anything into account.
ethically, tho, this is a no-brainer in my view.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|