Today, as you may have heard, the Bush administration released a new directive to CIA operatives that would ban "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" and "acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel and inhuman treatment."
Oddly, the declaration is being roundly criticized by human rights groups. Why?
Well, for a number of reasons. First, the directive does not represent a legal imperative. CIA operatives, for example, can't be prosecuted under it. Second, the statement is vague and could allow all sorts of abuse, depending on one's interpretation. The language certainly doesn't seem to include the kinds of abuse that are most commonly committed by US agents. It is clear that the Statement is not designed to prevent any act of detainee abuse, or to place restraints on interrogation techniques.
Why then, did the administration issue the directive?
The simplest explanation is that he is responding to public pressure, and that's probably part of it. I read some legal analysis that concluded that this directive may serve to protect CIA agents from prosecution for torturing detainees, though I'm not sure I get that. In any case, it's completely pathetic, and ultimately void of realistic effect.
It is, after all, clear that Bush has no humanitarian inclinations. If you'll remember, McCain tried to pass an anti-torture bill in 2005. It was on that bill that Bush made one of his famous "signing statements", in effect saying, "I'll sign this, but I don't have to abide by it."
Expanding the power to torture has been a cornerstone of this administration's policy, and that will be its legacy, along with a failed foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment