I was also shocked by the language used in the article. It used words like "intent," which see really vague to me. I have issues with the justice system because of it often uses extremely broad and vague language, which can be interpreted so many ways. Different individuals interpret things very differently causing many problems in this country. Ethically speaking how can one honestly determine "intent." Also what is stopping an interrogator from just saying that the "intent" was to not cause such extreme harm but things got out of hand.
Finally, the reactions of President Bush in the quotes from him bothered my on a very extreme level. I feel these reactions were classic Bush. He really did not take an active role in his presidency but just sat back and let others make decisions and he was basically just a puppet with no answers. I find this fact disturbing especially when dealing with the "problem of many hands." Bush clearly has to take some of the responsibility, but so do many other people clearly. How do we as a society starting dealing out responsibility and consequences when there are so many involved? This question has plagued me since the beginning of class.
I was also struck by the use of the word "intent." The emphasis of this almost-unprovable concept seemed, like the rest of the legal documents of the administration concerning torture, to be evasive. Lawyers like this are exactly what give the profession a bad name. They have obviously picked apart written words and found debatable language and exploited it.
ReplyDeleteA few examples:
"Yelling at the detainee is legal so long as the yelling is not done with the intent to cause severe physical damage or prolonged mental harm."
"...absent any evidence that any of these strategies will in fact cause prolonged and long lasting mental harm the proposed methods will not violate the statute."
"Additionally, such severe mental pain can arise only from the predicate acts listed in Section 2340."
-The continued use of "other procedures."
The above are examples of either deliberately vague languages or abuses of technicalities of the written statute. When a concept is vague, no attempt is made to define it, hence the words "intent," "absent any evidence," and "other procedures." It is convenient for the State Department to lack this "evidence" of lasting psychological or physical damage, because it allows them to claim ignorance. It is illegal for a drug to be granted to the public without studies on its effects. Similarly, if the interrogators were truly concerned with abiding by the law, they would do research before unleashing "unproven" techniques.
What might have made me the most disgusted was the complete lack of any mention of morality. Gonzales, the Dept. of Defense, and the administration were not concerned with what was MORAL, only what was LEGAL. And in their view, what was legal was anything not explicitly prohibited by the letter of the law. Ignoring both morality and the spirit of the law, they exploited the law's phrasing to excuse themselves for actions they wished to commit.
It is a shame when the highest officials of the land cannot be trusted to exhibit enough personal integrity to abide by morality or the true spirit of the law. What good is law when all the most accomplished experts in it are only engaged in trying to find ways to get around it?