In my mind, this is the smoking gun, strongly implying that the abuses were in fact a matter of policy. Only an implication, however, without that classified list of acceptable practices. It does seem to me (and I may be romanticizing the past) that not so long ago - let us say "Iran-Contra affair" - that such legalistic maneuvers after the fact let alone before it would have been considered by the public as prima facie evidence that some wrongdoing had occurred. Alas, no more.

This is an important break with the past. Any administration has so many means at its disposal to withhold information that actual constructive evidence against it can rarely be produced. If, therefore, it has no fear of even the appearance of wrongdoing and can no longer be damaged by such appearances (speaking of Regan), then it has little to fear. And we have much.

The thing which strikes me as the most disturbing about the new "torture ray" - aside from my desire to buy one - is that it harkens back to the days when dirty cops used to beat suspects about the head with a telephone book. This left no marks, but sufficiently bounced the brain around inside the skull that confessions were easily induced. Because there were no visible signs of torture, it was rather problematic for the suspect claim that said confession was obtained under duress. Nope, no 5th amendment issue here.

This is to say nothing of the tendency of the tortured to say whatever they think will make the torture stop. Most of the brass has admitted that the torture employed in Iraq has yielded very little. But I'm certain that contrary to the images from the torture we've seen in Mel's movies where the hero or villain stoically refuses to give the information he has, "Marathon
Man" is probably more the reality -

"Is it safe?"

"Oh yes, it's very safe. Couldn't get any safer"

ZAP!

"Is it safe?"

"... nope. Totally unsafe. Magic 8 ball says come back later."

And so on....

Even if this "invisible" torture yields useful information, it is disturbing, and not only for legal reasons. It does rather conform to certain stereotypes in the Arab world that we are "dishonorable". Better to them that we beat them in public with a lash until they tell us what we want to hear. Better to me, too.

WASHINGTON - Attorney General John Ashcroft said Tuesday he was not aware of any order by President Bush that would violate U.S. laws or treaties banning torture of military prisoners captured in Iraq or elsewhere in the war on terrorism.

"This administration rejects torture," Ashcroft declared under tense questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But he steadfastly refused to comment directly about a policy paper on this issue, or say whether Bush ever responded to it.

But, Ashcroft did say, "The Department of Justice will both investigate and prosecute individual who violate the law. The Torture Act is a law that we include in that violation."

... Said Ashcroft: "The president of the United States has not ordered any conduct that would violate the Constitution of the United States, that would violate not one of the laws enacted by the Congress, or that would violate any of the various treaties."

Ashcroft would not comment directly on the 2002 departmental memo that laid out a rationale in which the president was not necessarily bound by anti-torture laws or treaties because of his authority as commander in chief to protect national security.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., asked Ashcroft whether there is any presidential order that "immunizes (from prosecution) interrogators of al-Qaida suspects?"

"The president has issued no such order," Ashcroft replied.

The attorney general said the policy memo on this issue would not be made available to the committee, however. And Ashcroft said that while he respected the constitutional right of Congress to ask questions, "there are certain things that, in the interest of the executive branch operating effectively, that I think it is inappropriate for the attorney general to say."

"Do you think torture might be justified - not a memorandum - just a question to you, attorney general of the United States?" Biden asked.

"I am not going to issue or otherwise discuss hypotheticals. I will leave that to academics," Ashcroft replied.

"John, you sound like you're in the State Department," Biden shot back.

"I condemn torture. ... I don't think it's productive, let alone justified," Ashcroft responded.

Biden told Ashcroft "there's a reason why we (Congress) sign those (anti-torture) treaties" and it is to protect U.S. military personnel.

January 9, 2002: Justice Department lawyers John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty argue that "customary international law of armed conflict in no way binds...the President or the U.S. Armed Forces." Despite this "anything goes" argument, they go on to say that President Bush could still put Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters on trial as war criminals if they violate international laws.

January 25, 2002: White House counsel Alberto Gonzales warns that treatment of Taliban prisoners could be interpreted as war crimes. To avoid this possibility, he recommends that President Bush exempt captured Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters from the Geneva Conventions.

August 2002: A Justice Department memo about torture says that "necessity and self-defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability." Translation: torture is OK if we really, really think we need to do it.

April 2003: The Department of Defense says that "(the prohibition against torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in chief authority." In other words, as long as the president approves it, torture is OK.
___

The administration says that despite this rather chilling obsession with torture, all prisoners have been treated humanely. Maybe. But surely I'm not the only one who finds it disturbing that the topic of torture came up almost immediately after 9/11 and continued to be a subject of conversation on such a regular basis after that? They have an almost Nixonian penchant for trying to figure out how far they can go, how much they can get away with, and how best to protect themselves from future prosecution for war crimes.

I've got something simpler for the plainspoken President Bush: "We don't torture prisoners. Not on my watch." Why didn't he say that instead and just put the whole subject to rest?