On the US and Torture
May. 5th, 2004 12:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8Two years ago, George W. Bush bowed out of the treaty forming the World Court. Moreover, he signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act and with these two actions disavowed any accountability to the international community for acts undertaken by the US military. At the time, the evasion of accountability for war crimes thus expressed struck me as an announcement of intention by the administration to commit such acts as might be deemed prosecutable by the World Court.
And now, as the events at Abu Ghraib slip though the fingers of the administration and into the public consciousness, I find myself less shocked and appalled than most, largely because I could see that the intent was there back in 2002. Bush can speak all he wishes about how disgusting it all is, but given the efforts that he, Delay, and Helms have put into paving the way for this very eventuality, his crocodile tears simply do not ring true.
Indeed we can see what this administration regards as the real crime of Abu Ghraib in these words of Dr. Condoleezza Rice:
Those pictures were awful because America -- American men and women in uniform, active and reserve, are serving in Iraq at great sacrifice. People are losing their lives. We came there to help to liberate the people of Iraq. We came there to build schools, and to build clinics, and we want very much that the images of Americans should be the images of helping the Iraqi people. *Interview of the National Security Advisor by Al Arabiya, May 3, 2004, quoted on Whitehouse web site.
Her first concern here is not the actions, not the torture, but the pictures. Her concern is the kind of images we should be showing. Regardless of the seamy underside, America should be showing its best face, and keeping its skeletons in the closet. To paraphrase an old Sprite commercial, this administrations motto may be summed up by the phrase "Image is Everything, Truth is Nothing."
And now, as the events at Abu Ghraib slip though the fingers of the administration and into the public consciousness, I find myself less shocked and appalled than most, largely because I could see that the intent was there back in 2002. Bush can speak all he wishes about how disgusting it all is, but given the efforts that he, Delay, and Helms have put into paving the way for this very eventuality, his crocodile tears simply do not ring true.
Indeed we can see what this administration regards as the real crime of Abu Ghraib in these words of Dr. Condoleezza Rice:
Those pictures were awful because America -- American men and women in uniform, active and reserve, are serving in Iraq at great sacrifice. People are losing their lives. We came there to help to liberate the people of Iraq. We came there to build schools, and to build clinics, and we want very much that the images of Americans should be the images of helping the Iraqi people. *Interview of the National Security Advisor by Al Arabiya, May 3, 2004, quoted on Whitehouse web site.
Her first concern here is not the actions, not the torture, but the pictures. Her concern is the kind of images we should be showing. Regardless of the seamy underside, America should be showing its best face, and keeping its skeletons in the closet. To paraphrase an old Sprite commercial, this administrations motto may be summed up by the phrase "Image is Everything, Truth is Nothing."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-05 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 04:18 am (UTC)And you are not, I think, correct to judge the "first concern" -- you have merely quoted one statement and called it the first one. A great many statements have been made by Rice and a million others regarding the abuse. The impact on millions will be significant, as was the impact on dozens.
I believe that it is ... inappropriate to suggest, as you do herein, that Mr. Bush knew of this abuse and specifically pulled out of the World Court in order to protect these rogue soldiers' acts. Those soldiers were turned in by fellow soldiers, and their punishment will be swift and sure. These few 2am clowns should not be the yardstick of the American military.
No, the UN International Criminal Court hinted that it considered Tony Blair and George Bush as "potential war criminals", and planned an investigation. Even without that, it is clear that the UN leadership -- tainted by bribes from Hussein -- is not appropriate as the overriding authority over US courts. Are they going to investigate Kofi Annan and his family now? Hardly. Those same leaders are quashing the discovery attempts.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 03:26 pm (UTC)I'm suggesting that Mr. Bush pulled out because he wanted a free hand to use whatever methods he deemed necessary, regardless of their legality. I'm not suggesting that he was out to protect these specific soldiers.
As for my feelings about the ICC. . . well I don't wholly disagree with its characterization as a kangaroo court. Or perhaps more of a hammer in search of a nail. However, with Bush's withdrawal from the treaty, we aren't so much as a stakeholder any more, and have no influence to exert over it.
As for what's going on with Kofi Annan and the oil for food program; I think that this is a strong case for ad hoc tribunals over a standing court. It is difficult to have a court that stands for any length of time without becoming entrenched in politics. Our own supreme court is a current case in point.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-13 03:44 pm (UTC)First, we operate within legality -- the legality established by a long process of trial and error (yes, lots of trials, and lots of errors) that has been refined over hundreds of years. Presidential authority is carefully constrained by the overall checks and balances. Any changes must be proposed and voted on.
The ICC hadn't yet decided what they were going to consider "legal" -- and anyone whose policies they didn't like was likely to be considered illegal. I am, as you know, not a Christian -- but I am vicariously annoyed by the idea that prominent Christians would be considered subject to investigation by this body.
The upshot is that, by agreeing to be subordinate to this organization (and having a one to one vote with one of many human rights violators -- big deal) we would lose, in this country, our freedom of speech. Among other things. If the ICC members don't like you, you can be extradicted. For what, exactly? They are still working this out.
That subordination is a horrifically bad idea. Whatever you think of Mr. Bush, this decision was excellent.
===|==============/ Level Head