SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Judge Kavanaugh's alleged acts of sexual misconduct and the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican members' refusal to subject his categorial denials to the test of empirical investigation share something fundamental in common. (Photo: Lorie Shaull/Flickr/cc)
The Symmetry of the Torture and Sexual Misconduct Testimony of Brett Kavanaugh
What we do know suggests the likelihood that Kavanaugh, both as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and then as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006, had significant involvement in the Bush Administration’s torture policies
Sep 27, 2018
What is in the 85 percent of the available documents, amounting to more than 100,000 pages, that the White House has refused to release concerning Judge Brett Kavanaugh's role in the formulation and implementation of U.S. government policy authorizing the use of torture against detainees and prisoners in America's war against terror after 9/11?
What we do know suggests the likelihood that Kavanaugh, both as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and then as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006, had significant involvement in the Bush Administration's torture policies. We need to continue to demand to see Bush White House files to "pin down specifics of any Kavanaugh involvement in detainee policy discussions." (See the Chicago Tribune article by Michael Kranish, "Kavanaugh's role in Bush-era torture debate now an issue in his Supreme Court nomination," July 18, 2018.)
The refusal--and mainstream American culture's complicity in that refusal--of our institutions of governance and government oversight to have the question of the legalization of torture by the U.S., from 2001 to the present, re-opened, I believe, lies just beneath the surface, and to partially account for, the intensity of the stakes--emotional and psychological as well as political, social and ideological--felt by all Americans in resumed confirmation hearings, scheduled for tomorrow, of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court in response to the accusations of sexual misconduct brought against him by three credible women.
The questions raised by Americans' continuing denial of the consequences for the character of the history we are living of our government's explicit official sanction of torture by all the senior members of the executive branch of the Bush Administration--including those in the Office of Legal Counsel who participated in writing and approving the secret legal findings enabling and justifying torture--and the questions raised by Judge Kavanaugh's alleged acts of sexual misconduct and the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican members' refusal to subject his categorial denials to the test of empirical investigation share something fundamental in common. Both confront those charged with making a judgment about them with the question of how long democracy can survive if official power instrumentalizes truth to the point that it successfully uses the unaccountable violence of the force at its disposal to constitute the content of its self-legitimation.
The participation of an American lawyer serving as Associate Counsel to the President in the formulation of policies authorizing torture--a breach of jus cogens, a norm of international law from which no derogation is permitted as a first principle of the rule of law itself--and the assertion through personal violence of an entitlement to sexually assault women with impunity that includes having false denials given under oath of those substantiated acts upheld by a committee of the Senate of the United States are acts that share a crucial characteristic. Both perpetrate a formally sanctioned illicit unchecked violence exercised without accountability against devalued, defenseless persons. Surely that comes close to a working definition of fascism.
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Peter Dimock
Peter Dimock is the author of the novel, George Anderson: Notes for a Love Song in Imperial Time.
What is in the 85 percent of the available documents, amounting to more than 100,000 pages, that the White House has refused to release concerning Judge Brett Kavanaugh's role in the formulation and implementation of U.S. government policy authorizing the use of torture against detainees and prisoners in America's war against terror after 9/11?
What we do know suggests the likelihood that Kavanaugh, both as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and then as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006, had significant involvement in the Bush Administration's torture policies. We need to continue to demand to see Bush White House files to "pin down specifics of any Kavanaugh involvement in detainee policy discussions." (See the Chicago Tribune article by Michael Kranish, "Kavanaugh's role in Bush-era torture debate now an issue in his Supreme Court nomination," July 18, 2018.)
The refusal--and mainstream American culture's complicity in that refusal--of our institutions of governance and government oversight to have the question of the legalization of torture by the U.S., from 2001 to the present, re-opened, I believe, lies just beneath the surface, and to partially account for, the intensity of the stakes--emotional and psychological as well as political, social and ideological--felt by all Americans in resumed confirmation hearings, scheduled for tomorrow, of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court in response to the accusations of sexual misconduct brought against him by three credible women.
The questions raised by Americans' continuing denial of the consequences for the character of the history we are living of our government's explicit official sanction of torture by all the senior members of the executive branch of the Bush Administration--including those in the Office of Legal Counsel who participated in writing and approving the secret legal findings enabling and justifying torture--and the questions raised by Judge Kavanaugh's alleged acts of sexual misconduct and the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican members' refusal to subject his categorial denials to the test of empirical investigation share something fundamental in common. Both confront those charged with making a judgment about them with the question of how long democracy can survive if official power instrumentalizes truth to the point that it successfully uses the unaccountable violence of the force at its disposal to constitute the content of its self-legitimation.
The participation of an American lawyer serving as Associate Counsel to the President in the formulation of policies authorizing torture--a breach of jus cogens, a norm of international law from which no derogation is permitted as a first principle of the rule of law itself--and the assertion through personal violence of an entitlement to sexually assault women with impunity that includes having false denials given under oath of those substantiated acts upheld by a committee of the Senate of the United States are acts that share a crucial characteristic. Both perpetrate a formally sanctioned illicit unchecked violence exercised without accountability against devalued, defenseless persons. Surely that comes close to a working definition of fascism.
Peter Dimock
Peter Dimock is the author of the novel, George Anderson: Notes for a Love Song in Imperial Time.
What is in the 85 percent of the available documents, amounting to more than 100,000 pages, that the White House has refused to release concerning Judge Brett Kavanaugh's role in the formulation and implementation of U.S. government policy authorizing the use of torture against detainees and prisoners in America's war against terror after 9/11?
What we do know suggests the likelihood that Kavanaugh, both as Associate White House Counsel under George Bush from 2001 to 2003 and then as his White House Staff Secretary from 2003 to 2006, had significant involvement in the Bush Administration's torture policies. We need to continue to demand to see Bush White House files to "pin down specifics of any Kavanaugh involvement in detainee policy discussions." (See the Chicago Tribune article by Michael Kranish, "Kavanaugh's role in Bush-era torture debate now an issue in his Supreme Court nomination," July 18, 2018.)
The refusal--and mainstream American culture's complicity in that refusal--of our institutions of governance and government oversight to have the question of the legalization of torture by the U.S., from 2001 to the present, re-opened, I believe, lies just beneath the surface, and to partially account for, the intensity of the stakes--emotional and psychological as well as political, social and ideological--felt by all Americans in resumed confirmation hearings, scheduled for tomorrow, of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court in response to the accusations of sexual misconduct brought against him by three credible women.
The questions raised by Americans' continuing denial of the consequences for the character of the history we are living of our government's explicit official sanction of torture by all the senior members of the executive branch of the Bush Administration--including those in the Office of Legal Counsel who participated in writing and approving the secret legal findings enabling and justifying torture--and the questions raised by Judge Kavanaugh's alleged acts of sexual misconduct and the Senate Judiciary Committee's Republican members' refusal to subject his categorial denials to the test of empirical investigation share something fundamental in common. Both confront those charged with making a judgment about them with the question of how long democracy can survive if official power instrumentalizes truth to the point that it successfully uses the unaccountable violence of the force at its disposal to constitute the content of its self-legitimation.
The participation of an American lawyer serving as Associate Counsel to the President in the formulation of policies authorizing torture--a breach of jus cogens, a norm of international law from which no derogation is permitted as a first principle of the rule of law itself--and the assertion through personal violence of an entitlement to sexually assault women with impunity that includes having false denials given under oath of those substantiated acts upheld by a committee of the Senate of the United States are acts that share a crucial characteristic. Both perpetrate a formally sanctioned illicit unchecked violence exercised without accountability against devalued, defenseless persons. Surely that comes close to a working definition of fascism.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.