Averting Our Gaze From US Cruelty
Does the president of the United States have the right to order a detainee buried alive?
Oddly, this grotesque question was posed at a U.S. Congressional hearing last week. Even odder was the answer -- from John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, now a law professor at the University of California.
"I don't think that I've ever given the advice that the president could bury somebody alive," Yoo told a judiciary subcommittee hearing into detainee interrogations.
Well, I guess that's comforting to know. But it was striking to watch Yoo evade answering whether he considered there was any treatment so vicious and inhuman that it would be beyond the president's power to inflict it on a detainee, in the interests of national defence.
Apparently there isn't. In a public debate in 2005, Yoo was asked if he thought it would be lawful for the president to authorize crushing the testicles of a detainee's child.
It would seem like a simple "no" would suffice. But here's how Yoo responded: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."
Asked about that line last week during his Congressional testimony, Yoo didn't deny saying it, but protested that it was taken "out of context." Does that mean there's a context in which a top legal adviser might advise the president that that's okay?
After 7 1/2 years of George W. Bush, much of the media and political establishment -- which have never shown much interest in holding Bush to account -- now appear anxious to simply move on. They seem determined to leave unexamined the full cruelty and mendacity of the Bush administration, with its unlawful wars and blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Moving on is a great idea - once there's been some accountability, with a full public recognition of wrongdoing, and a commitment to bring about change. Otherwise, nothing will have been learned.
The comments of Yoo, who authored top-level internal memos justifying torture and virtually unlimited presidential power, suggest a moral depravity in very high places.
That depravity led to the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and at other U.S. prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and "black sites" around the world.
The dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, Lawrence Velvel, argues that Bush and top administration officials, including Yoo, should be tried for war crimes. His law school is holding a conference in September to map out ways to try to pursue these prosecutions "if need be, to the ends of the Earth."
Meanwhile, here in Canada, it seems we're supposed to avert our gaze. Strong critiques of Bush are slapped down for being "anti-American."
Certainly, the Harper government, while quick to spot anti-democratic behaviour in Zimbabwe, is blind to it south of the border. Not only has Ottawa failed to join European nations in protesting Guantanamo Bay -- and refused to do anything to help the Canadian imprisoned there -- it actively co-operates with the United States on security matters and has sent thousands of Canadian troops to Afghanistan to fight in the front lines of Bush's "war on terror."
All this is presented as helping our neighbour, and building democracy in Afghanistan. Another way to look at it is that we're lending support to an administration whose moral compass doesn't seem to rule out burying people alive or crushing the testicles of children.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Does the president of the United States have the right to order a detainee buried alive?
Oddly, this grotesque question was posed at a U.S. Congressional hearing last week. Even odder was the answer -- from John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, now a law professor at the University of California.
"I don't think that I've ever given the advice that the president could bury somebody alive," Yoo told a judiciary subcommittee hearing into detainee interrogations.
Well, I guess that's comforting to know. But it was striking to watch Yoo evade answering whether he considered there was any treatment so vicious and inhuman that it would be beyond the president's power to inflict it on a detainee, in the interests of national defence.
Apparently there isn't. In a public debate in 2005, Yoo was asked if he thought it would be lawful for the president to authorize crushing the testicles of a detainee's child.
It would seem like a simple "no" would suffice. But here's how Yoo responded: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."
Asked about that line last week during his Congressional testimony, Yoo didn't deny saying it, but protested that it was taken "out of context." Does that mean there's a context in which a top legal adviser might advise the president that that's okay?
After 7 1/2 years of George W. Bush, much of the media and political establishment -- which have never shown much interest in holding Bush to account -- now appear anxious to simply move on. They seem determined to leave unexamined the full cruelty and mendacity of the Bush administration, with its unlawful wars and blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Moving on is a great idea - once there's been some accountability, with a full public recognition of wrongdoing, and a commitment to bring about change. Otherwise, nothing will have been learned.
The comments of Yoo, who authored top-level internal memos justifying torture and virtually unlimited presidential power, suggest a moral depravity in very high places.
That depravity led to the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and at other U.S. prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and "black sites" around the world.
The dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, Lawrence Velvel, argues that Bush and top administration officials, including Yoo, should be tried for war crimes. His law school is holding a conference in September to map out ways to try to pursue these prosecutions "if need be, to the ends of the Earth."
Meanwhile, here in Canada, it seems we're supposed to avert our gaze. Strong critiques of Bush are slapped down for being "anti-American."
Certainly, the Harper government, while quick to spot anti-democratic behaviour in Zimbabwe, is blind to it south of the border. Not only has Ottawa failed to join European nations in protesting Guantanamo Bay -- and refused to do anything to help the Canadian imprisoned there -- it actively co-operates with the United States on security matters and has sent thousands of Canadian troops to Afghanistan to fight in the front lines of Bush's "war on terror."
All this is presented as helping our neighbour, and building democracy in Afghanistan. Another way to look at it is that we're lending support to an administration whose moral compass doesn't seem to rule out burying people alive or crushing the testicles of children.
Does the president of the United States have the right to order a detainee buried alive?
Oddly, this grotesque question was posed at a U.S. Congressional hearing last week. Even odder was the answer -- from John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, now a law professor at the University of California.
"I don't think that I've ever given the advice that the president could bury somebody alive," Yoo told a judiciary subcommittee hearing into detainee interrogations.
Well, I guess that's comforting to know. But it was striking to watch Yoo evade answering whether he considered there was any treatment so vicious and inhuman that it would be beyond the president's power to inflict it on a detainee, in the interests of national defence.
Apparently there isn't. In a public debate in 2005, Yoo was asked if he thought it would be lawful for the president to authorize crushing the testicles of a detainee's child.
It would seem like a simple "no" would suffice. But here's how Yoo responded: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."
Asked about that line last week during his Congressional testimony, Yoo didn't deny saying it, but protested that it was taken "out of context." Does that mean there's a context in which a top legal adviser might advise the president that that's okay?
After 7 1/2 years of George W. Bush, much of the media and political establishment -- which have never shown much interest in holding Bush to account -- now appear anxious to simply move on. They seem determined to leave unexamined the full cruelty and mendacity of the Bush administration, with its unlawful wars and blatant violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Moving on is a great idea - once there's been some accountability, with a full public recognition of wrongdoing, and a commitment to bring about change. Otherwise, nothing will have been learned.
The comments of Yoo, who authored top-level internal memos justifying torture and virtually unlimited presidential power, suggest a moral depravity in very high places.
That depravity led to the horrific abuses at Abu Ghraib and at other U.S. prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and "black sites" around the world.
The dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, Lawrence Velvel, argues that Bush and top administration officials, including Yoo, should be tried for war crimes. His law school is holding a conference in September to map out ways to try to pursue these prosecutions "if need be, to the ends of the Earth."
Meanwhile, here in Canada, it seems we're supposed to avert our gaze. Strong critiques of Bush are slapped down for being "anti-American."
Certainly, the Harper government, while quick to spot anti-democratic behaviour in Zimbabwe, is blind to it south of the border. Not only has Ottawa failed to join European nations in protesting Guantanamo Bay -- and refused to do anything to help the Canadian imprisoned there -- it actively co-operates with the United States on security matters and has sent thousands of Canadian troops to Afghanistan to fight in the front lines of Bush's "war on terror."
All this is presented as helping our neighbour, and building democracy in Afghanistan. Another way to look at it is that we're lending support to an administration whose moral compass doesn't seem to rule out burying people alive or crushing the testicles of children.