Spanish Magistrate Baltazar Garzon, charged with investigating credible claims of torture arising from detention and interrogation of prisoners in the Iraq conflict and the Bush “War on Terror” associated with that post-9/11 set of US policies, ordered prosecutors to investigate the actions of several Bush Administration officials. Douglas Feith, former US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, along with Alberto Gonzalez, David Addington, John Yoo and Jay Bybee were names as targets of the investigation. The roles of Bybee and Yoo are fairly well known as legal counsel responsible for drafting and approving legal memoranda that rationalized and appeared to authorize aggressive interrogation techniques deemed by the rest of the international community as illegal torture. Former Attorney General Gonzalez was named by Condoleeza Rice as the designated Administration official coordinating DOJ advice to the president regarding interrogation policy. Addington was Cheney’s primary functionary and the principal conduit through which the War on Terror policy moved.
Feith was a principal player in his role cooking up false and misleading “intelligence” alleging ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq. He also served on a work group that developed harsh interrogation technique policies approved by the Bush Administration and used against detainees in Bagram, Guantanamo and the many “secret” prison facilities to which prisoners were taken as a result of “extraordinary rendition” practices.
Feith, in response to news that he was being investigated, recently replied in an interview that he had not advocated the policies and practices under scrutiny. This position seems facile at best, as the basis for initiating the investigation came from direct quotes in interviews given by Feith himself. The 98 page report upon which the magistrate acted contains multiple corroborating sources that describe a fairly clear picture of the parties involved as well as the actions that arose from the deliberations of the Bush administration work group. As direct testimony accumulates from detainees subjected to the aggressive interrogation practices, the focus of both cause and effect begins to sharpen.
At the time of his central involvement and public pronouncements of the importance and necessity of using such techniques that, even then, raised questions of Geneva Conventions and international law violations, Feith wrapped himself in the cloak of a hero promoting and protecting the national interests of the United States and the “American people.” Now, when his actions are being scrutinized in the cold light of history and without the backdrop of a sycophantic Congress and enabling White House, Feith seeks to rewrite history and claim that he never supported such policies.
A man of courage and integrity would simply have acknowledged his willing and enthusiastic role in the Bush fiasco. An honest man would accept responsibility for what he actually did in helping to shape and advocate approval of measures that he believed were important to advancing the interests of his superiors and their regime. That would be consistent with the posture of hero in which Feith tried to cast himself at the time of his participation in the work group. If those were his beliefs, then he ought to have the courage to stand up for them. John Yoo has remained unapologetic respecting his legal memos that the great majority of legal scholars, liberal and conservative, have assessed as both legally unfounded and professionally incompetent. Yet John Yoo has maintained the courage of his convictions, no matter how flawed and indefensible, morally and legally, they are.
Perhaps it is in keeping with the character surrounding the falsified intelligence activities of Feith and the general pattern of deceit and dishonesty of the Bush Administration, that he would now seek to disavow activities regarding which clear documentation exists. In more forthright times, his current posture might be called a “bald faced lie.” Yet the Bush Administration was not generally in the same arena as the truth when it came to justifications for its policies regarding Iraq and its War on Terror. Instead, it typically chose to deceive the public and most of Congress while claiming privilege or classified status as a basis for refusing to turn over any corroborating or supporting documentation for the claims it made or policy positions it took. So it is not entirely clear whether Feith actually did support the torture of prisoners in his heart, while he actively advanced torture policy in his actions. He may have simply chosen to abandon any morality or to act against his personal values in order to advance his career and public posture.
One thing is clear, however, Feith took an active role in advocating for the use of torture against detainees in connection with the War on Terror and the Iraq invasion and occupation. His current denial of such actions is cowardly and unseemly. Nothing other than his own venality required him to set aside moral opposition to torture in support of the Bush regime policies. If he had no such moral objection then, it is cowardly to effect the posture that he did object when his actions are now under objective scrutiny. It is a sign of weak character to seek to portray oneself as a hero to aggrandize a public posture, only to disavow both actions and responsibility when held accountable for the actions upon which such heroism was claimed.
See Also: Spain investigates what America Should -
Marjorie Cohn - Monday, April 6, 2009 - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/06/EDSG16SH3N.DTL
No comments:
Post a Comment