Friday, April 11, 2008

Amorality at the highest levels

It is way past time for the American People to wake up and call a spade a damned shovel.

Looseheadprop, in excellent ongoing discussion of the Yoo torture memo, discusses today the extensive citations of violent procedures against human beings without the slightest hint that what is being described violates moral principles.
His description of maiming is even more accurate and gruesome:

Another criminal statute ...makes it a crime for an individual (1) "with the intent to torture (as defined in section 2340), maim, or disfigure" to (2) "cut, bite, or slit the nose ear or lip, or cut out or disable the tongue, or put out or destroy an eye, or cut off or disable a limb or any member of another person." [citation omitted] It further prohibits individuals from "throw[ing] or pour[ing] upon another person any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance" with like intent.

There are two things that really strike me about this memo, not just how dishonest the "scholarship" is, but also how cold blooded it is. There is no sense in the memo that any of these actions is wrong, or to be avoided. They are described in full gruesome detail yet completely without any sense that they are wrong. He could just have easily been describing something that was going to be done to insects rather than fellow human beings.

Remember the thrust and conclusion of this 81-page nightmare is that the President has the power to authorize all kinds of torture; that if the President authorizes such torture, the persons who commit it are immune from prosecution; and despite clear language in the Constitution that empowers Congress to make rules for the governance of the armed forces (e.g. see my previous post, Up is Down, Hot is Cold), that Congress has no power to pass laws either stopping torture or making it a criminal act.

What does this say about the people running our country?

What does it say about us that they are still in office or government employ and not behind bars?
--the BB

No comments: