This is not journalism. The serious issues in this program raise important questions of intentional violations of the law by our highest elected officials and those who advise them. Yet you discuss these issues like you were reporting on the latest fashions. This report is way below your usual standards on this program.
Most troubling is the premise that the use of torture is not illegal under the Geneva Conventions, international human rights law, the Convention Against Torture, the U.S. Constitution that makes treaties the law of the land, and U.S. statutory and military law, but merely a form of interrogation appropriate for evaluation on the basis of its supposed efficacy and the interrogator’s perception of its necessity.
For example, note this question by Margot Adler to John Yoo: “Do we really need to be able to subject suspects to waterboarding?”
There is no journalistic integrity in giving John Yoo a platform to rationalize his advice to the President and Vice President. It is irresponsible journalism to allow Mr. Yoo to use your program as a forum to deny liability for human rights and war crimes.
Mr. Yoo is a lawyer who advised the President and Vice President, contrary to an established body of law, that torture was legal. Mr. Yoo is an advocate for torture and an advocate for unlimited presidential power in a time of war. His legal advice and his statements are on the record. Mr. Yoo is an officer of the court, and he has ethical codes he must adhere to, yet he misrepresented the law on your program by stating that there is only one criminal statute prohibiting torture. He is on the written record in memos advising the President and Vice President how to circumvent the body of law prohibiting torture, which includes the Code of Military Conduct, the Geneva Conventions, and other treaties that become the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution.
It is in times of war that our vigilance and that of the press is essential to prevent or at least restrain our president from imposing inhuman measures such as torture. For example, the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is the result of the torture policy adopted by the President and Vice President.
A free press should report and speak out against illegal government actions, not serve as a defender of the government actors who perpetrated the crimes. It is just plain incompetent that this program that holds itself out as a “civic education initiative . . . . that tackles the tough provocative legal issues. . .” did so little preparation to examine the record on the Bush administration’s deliberate efforts to promote the use of torture and deliberate attempts to circumvent the body of laws prohibiting torture. For example, White House memos specifically list avoidance of war crimes liability as one reason to issue orders that Geneva Conventions should not apply to certain prisoners.
I urge you to refresh your history about the dangers of falling prey to legalistic sounding rationalizations for inhuman governmental actions. Take the time to view the 1961 film Judgment at Nuremberg starring Spencer Tracy and Burt Lancaster. It is the story about the trial
of German judges who distorted the law to perpetuate massive atrocities against humanity.
At the very least, Justice Talking should revisit the issues of the Bush administration’s use of torture and violations of FISA. The focus should be the law. Explain the body of law prohibiting torture and then report on the Bush administration’s attempts to circumvent the law.
Here is a suggestion for a third program topic: What are the precedent setting consequences for our system of American justice when the executive branch takes secret unilateral action to subvert the law and the U.S. Constitution?