What’s behind Bush’s change of heart?
September 8, 2006, 11:06 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Several people have commented on what’s really behind President Bush’s decision to grant 14 “war on terror” prisoners POW status, and what it means for U.S. policy on torture. Here’s a roundup:
- The Plank (and here, previously linked to)
- Balkinization (several posts there worth reading)
- The Daily Dish (and here, here, and here)
Among the many comments you cite Grant, this is one that recurs in every serious article I’ve read on torture. This from General John Kimmons:
“No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that.” He argued that “any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility.” And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. “It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used,” Kimmons said. “We can’t afford to go there.”
The principled arguments against torture are clear; the administration needs to acknowledge–what even Israeli interrogators say!–that the emperical arguments against are also clear: you get trash!
And let’s skip the ticking bomb scenario!
Maybe Grant was being ironic by calling Bush’s admission a “change of heart.” There clearly is no change of heart — there’s a change in the modes of duplicity and criminality.
I guess historians will look back (not so distant future) and say all the facts were there. Worse than Watergate, unconscionable tax cut, paying religious groups for votes, intimidation and manipulation of the press, an intimidated media, a corrupt congress, etc,etc.
Meanwhile, Rove and the neocons began another restoration attempt to the Bush image which is more important than the country’s well being.