COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

Speaking of Josh Marshall (I reference him in a previous post you probably haven't read yet), he has a really good post on a Justice department memo to the White House which suggested that some aggressive interrogation techniques which do cause pain but do not involve death, organ failure, disfigurement, or long-term psychological debilitation should not be considered torture under the law, and may in certain circumstances (I.e., the interrogation of Al Qaeda suspects outside the normal jurisdiction of US Courts) may be halal.

Marshall cites a clause in the memo which suggest that the ability to set aside the law is "inherent in the President."

Josh links to a Wall Street Journal article, which requires a subscription. But the Washington Post has a good article on the memo for free.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post article makes no reference to the presidents inherent authority to set aside the law--which is arguably the most significant piece of language in the text, since it has potential ramifications not just in the treatment of Al Qaeda detainees (who can pretty much rot, as far as I'm concerned. I advocate their humane treatment mostly out of a sop to the importance of the rule of law rather than any particular personal concern for their well-being), but in all aspects of Presidential authority.

I have always advocated a strong Presidency. But not an imperial presidency. If this is a window into John Ashcroft's way of thinking, then I do find this very troubling.

This was certainly not the reasoning employed by the Republican party's house managers during the impeachment and Senate trial of Bill Clinton. Indeed, it is its polar opposite.

I am heartened, though, by the stiff opposition to the Justice Department's reasoning on the part of Pentagon lawyers.

Looks like the Pentagon is the more enlightened and humanistic institution here.

Who knew?

The use of torture, in any form, cannot be justified under International law as currently written. The Justice Department's position, as stated in this memo, is perverse.

I do recognize the theoretical potential for an overriding national security concern in certain limited cases--the doctrine of neccessity I've discussed here on this blog on a few occasions--but let's not pretend it's legal.

Cori Dauber also has a good, opposing take on the memo, suggesting it's no big deal. But that's with the caveat, IF the President disregarded the advice therein.

I'm glad there's a lively internal debate, and a continuum of opinion within the Administration.

But I think Ashcroft wandered off the Rez on this one.

Splash, out

Jason