..out of the dark

Recently, it was possible to read in most major and minor news- papers around the globe, that the current Attorney General (the highest legal official in the US of A), had declared there were no inquiries of interest to be had regarding the issue of torture. More specifically, on whether torture was explicitly allowed by the White House, in clear violation of federal statutes and law at the time.

Because, as mr. Mukasey said: the department of justice, in a secret opinion, found the "program" to be within the law, and therefore no crime would be there to investigate. Clearly, I am not so clever as the Bush- administration monkeys combined, so I should naturally show reverence to such convincing claims of authority. But it strikes me that in order to make such an argument, you would first presume that what was allowed in the secret opinion indeed was torture. If it wasn't torture, then what would the problem be - no new opinions would need to be sought. And barring the possibility that the existing law somehow suggested sewing pillows under the arms of the prisoners - and that the entire enhanced interrogation scheme, with pictures and manuals - together with the successful attempt to sideline the army manual on the treatment of POWs, or "specially designated detainees" - then we can establish that the Attorney General does undoubtedly speak about torture, and how the DOJ legalised it in a secret memo. Of course - what he's actually talking about, is how the matter was delegated to the unlimited presidential authority often mentioned when it comes to any of these things. And you can spot that, but noting how non- existent the actual argument is - never is there any argument on whether the issue is defensible in specific law, and whether this should be so. It is always a matter of whether it's techically possible to allow it within a secret interpretation of unwritten precedent regarding executive privilege. And are so declaring to the Senate, that the president is above the law. The question is - how does that view arrive in a democracy? How does that view somehow survive being heard in front of the representatives for 300 million people (of whom 25% actually vote)?

Not long after this declaration, of making the US a police state, the responsible people in the political elite would chime in on the issue. And one can read that "a little torture", might actually be necessary to show how the US means business.

How does that view arrive in a democracy? That certain crimes are so serious, that the suspicion of them must be enough to secretly imprison individuals and expose them to physical harm, in order to produce confessions? Presumably, they should also be followed by trials - where then evidence acquired by torture would be admissible.

In the end, we're left with only one explanation for this, which is as obvious as it is alarming. We are not talking about process in a democracy any more. Instead, we are talking about an argument that arises from fanatical ideological belief in a leader- figure. In the same manner, we are not talking about a people who are being hoodwinked into believing the process is fully functional, but who are consciously voting for the leader's appeal as head of the elite, and master of the rest.

Which brings us back to the question of moral. How is it moral to condone torture? How is it moral to argue that torture is fine as long as we declare it is all right and legal - but not all right for others? Who are human rights violators and evil when using the same tactics? The answer is - how can it not be moral to do it, when "we" are doing it. And that's how the moral argument is made. "We" are good, so therefore we do not have to argue for why we are doing something - because it must be right and just.

What of course needs to be mentioned at the end is the care with which the current administration's proponents actually avoid making this argument. Instead, they attempt to make it sound as if the argument is a different one: that the law already allows everything they say - and so it is the opposition's radical argument of non- dictatorship that needs to be explained. To some extent, that is true. Because without any understanding of how government works, or how it should work - then the explained theory on "democracy" will win. The one John Bolton, Mukasey, Gonzales, Bush, Cheney, Kristol and all the rest actively argue for. Where decisions are not found after having a process where different views are heard. But where government is merely a vehicle to legitimise what the leader has already decided. With some help from the specially privileged, of course. The ones that actually are central to the operation - the contributors, and the ones who keep the economy alive, according to the theories that somehow find themselves with unanimous support.