Torture, Revisted.

I have written about torture before, and (surprise!) my position has not changed. Torture is never defensible. The “ticking bomb” scenario is fallacious scare-mongering, and the act itself is not only morally and ethically indefensible, but both nationally and internationally illegal. Tyrants are prosecuted at The Hague for torture.

Which puts into perspective President Bush’s recent disclosure that he approved of his national security team meeting, discussing, and formulating what can only be described as a torture policy – what kinds, how many times, and how often torture was acceptable. Present at these meetings were Vice President Dick Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. Conspicuously absent: President Bush himself. His team did a good job of keeping him isolated, so that if asked under oath (not that the president would ever lower himself to be put under oath!) he could deny that he was at the meetings.

The fact that this story has not received a great deal of media play – Obama’s “elitist rhetoric” has been the major news story – stems from two causes.

The first is that the Bush media team did a good job. They released the information on a Friday afternoon – the perfect time to allow White House press releases to slip under the radar. Instant damage control, and every administration does it.

The second reason is far more insidious. The Bush Administration, in its effort to push their agenda of the Imperial (or dictatorial) Presidency – the Strong Unitary Executive, as they call it – has stated repeatedly that it should not be confined by international law, nor national law, nor checks and balances. Not in so many words of course, but by refusing to allow senior staff to testify before Congress, by using signing statements to completely undermine bills that the President signs, and by showing what can only be described of as contempt to the Congress and the American People, the Bush Administration has never stepped down.

They do the same with torture. They do not quibble whether torture is legal or not – they discuss the minutia of “Which torture IS legal? What counts as torture?” Unfortunately, the media and Congress have accepted Bush’s position that some torture is legal by engaging in the debates as he shapes them. By shaping the discourse from the outset, the Bush Administration is able to slowly turn the conversation away from the illegal nature of torture –all torture – to a legal semantics debate about what is torture, how often it can be done, and to whom.

I am reminded of a famous quote by the master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

The Bush Administration had told the big lie, and they told that lie at the outset. There was furor over it, but that died down soon enough as the next Bush lie was told, smaller this time. As more lies were told, people became more bogged down in the mass of small lies, tacitly accepting the Big Lie that underlies the entire conversation. Instead of discussing if Water Boarding is legal, we should be discussing how long Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the others will be spending in The Hague.

Which, of course, will be no time at all. America does not acknowledge the International Criminal Court for just this reason. It would prevent our officials, elected or appointed, from committing torture or genocide, or continuing an illegal occupation. And America can’t have that. It would be… Un-American.

Or so another Big Lie goes.

“Impeach the Bastards!”