Ross’s debut column at the New York Times concerns a counterfactual Cheney run for President in 2008 — fun to spin out, but with its unhappy ending back in reality:
Here Dick Cheney, prodded by the ironies of history into demanding greater disclosure about programs he once sought to keep completely secret, has an important role to play. He wants to defend his record; let him defend it. And let the country judge.
But Cheney has a problem. The ground of defense is not that ‘it got results.’ The issue is not whether torture is capable of producing results, or even the quality of those results. A million monkeys at a million waterboards will eventually produce a confessional masterpiece. Under existential threat, the argument about torture poses the question of whether to start, not when to finish. And the justification of the decision to start has been that this decision had been kept secret. For Cheney to defend his record, he must not only, like a Soloflex salesman, harp on ‘results’; he must defend the secrecy of the methods that obtained them. Secrecy was essential to results.
This reveals an uncomfortable but important truth about how our argument against our torture differs from ‘the’ argument ‘against torture’ — the ethical or theoretical argument. That latter argument can be resolved in reference to the suffering of the victim or the corruption of the perpetrator. Ours, on the other hand, is not. Even someone who justifies the suffering of our victims or the corruption of our perpetrators cannot yet be finished. They must defend the secrecy; in so doing, they must defend trusting the government of a free and equal people to violate the terms of that people’s law, custom, and mores on terms which only the government is to set and know.
How can the country judge this theroetically acceptable? It is so much easier simply to judge torture theoretically acceptable. But we will not judge an official, public torture program acceptable in practice because we cannot justify it even in speech. One way or the other we will insist that this ‘dark chapter’ is only a chapter. And the defensive position will have to move into the following crouch: horrible though it was, those days after all are over; and though we thank God they are, of course, we must recognize that some people sacrificed what we hold dear in order to save us. Dick Cheney, martyr…
Another possibility, of course, is that we really do change our laws to permit certain Enhanced Techniques. The worst possibility is that torture is declared over in a public triumph and then, secretly, all over again…
April 29th, 2009 | 2:56 am
Every elected American official takes an oath which begins with a guarantee to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defence.
Captured terrorists at Guantanamo are not American citizens, nor are they prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention.
It may be impolitic as well as unethical to incarcerate people for years without bringing charges against them. It may be, in many instances terribly cruel to torture them, and religious people object to cruelty.
But religious people should take an oath of office seriously. Yom Kippur is a holiday devoted to beseeching God’s forgiveness for having made vows and broken them.
All editorials against what occurred at Guantanamo must include alternative ways to uphold the constitutional oath to protect the American people.
dailyraphirmations
April 29th, 2009 | 2:23 pm
Um, Raphael…there’s no constitutional oath to protect the American people. There’s an oath to uphold the Constitution. Any idea what the Constitution says about torture?
April 29th, 2009 | 3:04 pm
“Every elected American official takes an oath which begins with a guarantee to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defence.”
He also takes an oath to uphold the law, he broke the law, get the gallows ready now
April 29th, 2009 | 6:55 pm
“Captured terrorists at Guantanamo are not American citizens, nor are they prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention.”
raphael a,
Technically they are. When we declared “War” on terror, any and all enemies captured are technically prisoners of the “War” on terror. You can spin it any way you want it with legalese, or speakese, the fact still remains. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
April 29th, 2009 | 7:40 pm
Raphael is a stooge. Anyone who uses the word “terrorist” to describe a detainee before they have been accused, tried and found guilty based on reviewable, arguable evidence of committing a crime is an apologist for a tyrranical regime. Is one instantly a “thief” if they are arrested for theft but later found innocent because of lack of evidence or the real thief is found with the stolen goods and the wrongly accused is then exonerated? As long as the government and press plays these semantic games no true dialogue or truth will ever see the light of day. Raphael needs to read up on what justice really means without some hebrew nonsense about begging god’s forgiveness. Just count how many prisoners detained at Guantamano have been quietly released without charge. “Sorry about stealing six years of your life and torturing you, we are going to ask Yahweh for forgiveness.” He says “Captured terrorists at Guantanamo are not American citizens, nor are they prisoners of war covered by the Geneva convention.” Yeah, because the Bush administration changed our laws as they saw fit without input from the other two branches of government or simply placed yes men in positions to rubber stamp their egregious end run around the laws of our republic. The US prosecuted Korean and Japanese military personnel for the exact types of torture our government condones.
April 29th, 2009 | 7:52 pm
Raphael,
I’m afraid you just composed a fiction.
Here is the President’s constitutional oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Here is the oath of office for other federal employees:
“I [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
There is no mention of protecting people. American citizens are human beings just like the citizens of other countries. In fact, unlike most other countries, our citizens ARE from other countries. What makes our country better, and stronger, is the constitution. It’s the constitution that differentiates us, not the people. That is why people pledge to defend the Constitution against “enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC . . .” If they “take an oath of office seriously” then they should pursue the individuals that violated American law.
April 29th, 2009 | 8:24 pm
The usual lovely quality of debate on the issue…
May 2nd, 2009 | 5:43 pm
Did someone named Larry just call me a stooge? Clearly unfamiliar with the Fine Brothers.
My comment was on the conflict between upholding civil rights versus the primary duty of government to protect its citizens from harm.
Most of the attacks were cheap shots. Perez Hilton without the dignity.
And I fail to understand how a presidential vow to “preserve the constitution” doesn’t start with the preamble.
May 4th, 2009 | 11:25 pm
[...] whatsoever to the notion of being a “shining city upon the hill,” then we as a populace need to be in a position where we can evaluate whether the certain loss of our shine is worth the theoretical loss of some of our size. We need [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact