The United States and torture

[chickenfeet]

OK, I'm confused now. Until recently the US has maintained that it does not use or condone torture but has been very careful to define torture in extremely restricted terms, i.e. acts likely to lead to death or organ failure. Thus techniques which the CIA is known to use, such as waterboarding and stress positions, are were excluded from the US government's definition of torture. Now the Secretary of State is saying that the US adheres to all its obligations under international law including the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT). Now CAT clearly outlaws interrogation techniques that Dick Cheney, for one, has publicly defended as legal and, in his view, necessary. So what's going on? Is US policy shifting? Is there a split in the administration? After all, it's no secret that most officials at State are fairly horrified by current US policy in a number of areas. Is it cynicism on Rice's part? Or is Rice being hung out to dry? Kremlin White House watchers please comment. This is really getting as hard to read as the Chinese.

Comments

[forthright.livejournal.com]

How about: The Bush administration is arrogant enough and secure enough in American imperial power that they don't believe there will be any consequences, domestic or international, no matter how inconsistent they seem to be. Rice and Cheney don't have to be consistent with one another. They are large; they contain multitudes.