George Walker Bush — the man elected to embody the soul of the nation — has personally endorsed torture as an acceptable American practice. Personally, and more than once. It is President Bush personally who insisted upon denying prisoners rights under the Geneva Conventions. It is President Bush personally who insisted that the next Attorney General be Alberto R. Gonzales: the administration's most prominent advocate of torture. This was a hugely symbolic act, as Gonzales was known by the public for almost nothing but his advocacy of torture.
Alberto Gonzales famously wrote to Bush, in January 2002, that the current war should be considered unique when it is necessary to "quickly obtain information" from captured combatants: "In my judgment this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." It is a historical fact — perhaps the central moral fact of his presidency — that President Bush weighed this judgment, and came out unambiguously in favor.
And by the end of that year, a shy, innocent taxi driver would be tortured to death in an American dungeon, solely for the pleasure of hearing him cry out to God.
------------------------------------------------------------
(This initially appeared on Dysblog. You now have to pay to read Tim Golden's article, unfortunately — it is archived at the above link to the New York Times.)
Article comments
1 - Barry Stoller
Very well written with a devastating conclusion. Funny, I don't hear all the usual blogcritic rightwingers make their usual glib remarks. That's quite an accomplishment on this forum.
2 - Dave Nalle
It's still early Barry.
But you know what, most right wingers don't endorse torture either. Even President Bush who does believe in some extreme measures when dealing with terrorists, doesn't endorse what went on at Abu Ghraib. What happened there was clearly in violation of miitary policy, and what has come out in these trials is that the soldiers knew that and chose to act as they did anyway. Some responsibility goes up the chain of command, but soldiers still aren't required to obey unlawful orders, especially when - as in this case - they really originated from outside the chain of command in the first place.
Dave
3 - alienboy
Fabulous piece of work Mr Cooper, thanks for writing it.
Isn't it odd that no officers have been convicted?
4 - steve
I could care less about the terrorists being held at guantanamo bay. I hope they all rot there. they are guilty until proven innocent
5 - The Searcher
The Stanford experiment was very revealing indeed.
If only Gort would come down and ensure everyone plays fair.
6 - Christian
"Isn't it odd that no officers have been convicted?"
The soldiers involved in the Bagram, Afghanistan incident have suffered for their actions.
By the way - Specialist Damien M. Corsetti was never accused of taking "this man to the extremes of excruciating pain". Get it right.
7 - Silas Kain
George Walker Bush -- the man elected to embody the soul of the nation --
Um, like it or not, but doesn't G.W. Bush, in fact, embody the soul of this nation? From the liberal POV we have an apathetic, disconnected leader who only takes interest in issues when the shit hits the fan. From the conservative POV we have a leader who is the bastion of all that is good and righteous about America, praise Jesus. Now, my friends, I ask you -- which side is wrong?
8 - Douglas Anthony Cooper
>By the way - Specialist Damien M. Corsetti was never >accused of taking "this man to the extremes of >excruciating pain". Get it right.
By the way, my article says that it did *not* take Corsetti to do this. Which is to say, they didn't need him, and didn't call him in. Learn to read.