“Newspeak” by Bush

For decades, it has been common to interpret the works of George Orwell as an indictment of totalitarianism. The “newspeak” from Nineteen Eighty-Four, where lies became the truth and vice versa, was after all characteristic of the Soviet Union. This interpretation turns out to have been somewhat too narrow. Ex-President Bush appears to be skilled in “newspeak,” too. On September 6, 2006, he revealed that the CIA, during interrogations in the fight against terrorism, indeed used “an alternative set of procedures.” But those were in accordance with the Constitution and with treaties, Bush assured.

Last weekend, The New York Review of Books revealed the contents of a confidential report by the [International] Red Cross on this “alternative practice.” The Red Cross did not draft this report for public consumption in order to prevent the detainees from making political statements, or from just not saying anything out of fear of reprisals.

On the basis of detailed and varied evidence, the Red Cross concludes that innumerable CIA interrogation practices amount to “torture” and other “inhumane and cruel treatment,” as defined and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Bush has been well aware of this. Already in the summer of 2002, his administration approved a memorandum by the Justice Department wherein the term “torture” was very well understood. An interrogation method, according to the Department, would be considered torture only if the resulting pain felt like a “physical injury so severe that death or the loss of an organ and then of bodily function would likely result.” The White House must have known where this would end. It is probably no coincidence that former Vice-President Cheney appeared on television just last weekend to defend this very policy as “absolutely necessary,” and to attack President Obama as too soft on the war against terrorism.

Cheney may get away with such a way forward. Outside the U.S., no legal risk threatens him because America is one of the few western countries that do not recognize the International Criminal Court. In his own country, Cheney also goes scot-free. Obama has ordered an investigation into the practices of the CIA, but will draw a line on the rest. Moreover, a law was passed that grants immunity to anyone who participates in the “war on terror.” That is not so crazy. Some immunity is justified to insure that politicians and officials do not have to fear going to prison every time another administration comes to power.

Nevertheless, this rationale is unsatisfactory. Indications are now growing that the Bush administration has been involved in acts that were contrary to the U.S. Constitution and international treaties. But the reaction to that is, out of necessity, particularly moral in nature.

For the political prestige of the U.S. as a nation of laws, it would be good for Obama to agree to a broader investigation by an independent, public prosecutor.