The Romans had an expression for it: “Nulla poena sine lege,” no punishment without a law. But people sometimes forget that the opposite is also true: Without punishment for offenders, a law itself can die.
It’s a macabre charade,
one night in the secret
theater of Abu Ghraib.
The anklets are shackles.
In another, a leashed
dog — loud, black,
and snarling — takes
center stage.
The day after Barack Obama took office, he signed a series of executive orders mandating the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as the global network of secret, CIA-run “black site” prisons. In addition, he committed the United States to observe the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. More than two years later, the Obama administration has not followed through on most of these promises, even reversing several commitments.
Attempts by members of the Bush administration to link bin Laden’s death to intelligence gained through torture reek of desperation.
Though Abu Zubaydah was rejected by al Qaeda and is mentally ill, he’s been detained at Guantanamo for nine years with no plans to review his case.
Which is worse: drone strikes or torture?
The International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that the Indian government condoned torture to gain control of Kashmir.
Its uniqueness and unreality render it useless as a justification for torture. Perfect for a movie, though.
Citizens on both sides of the political divide are outraged at the recently released Department of Justice report on the Bush administration’s torture memos, and what it shows about the lawyers who compiled those legal weapons and subverted the law. But while debate rages over whether or not legal pugilists John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee ought to be subjected to disciplinary action for their loose interpretation of laws prohibiting torture, the media is ignoring an equally disturbing issue. Buried in the weighty study from the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility is evidence that points directly at the Central Intelligence Agency. When it came to “enhanced interrogation techniques” — the carefully parsed phrase for torture — the lawyers at Langley don’t seem to have applied a sniff test to these controversial policies.
In the beginning we will all wear black hoods