1115.org

(1)
Yesterday, FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni tried to resist the pressure of Sen. Dick Durbin’s relentless interrogation. But she finally broke down, and gave up the truth. And all without painful stress positions, dogs, forced nudity, mock execution or waterboarding.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni if “painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, mock execution and waterboarding” were “abusive” and “illegal.” In asking his question, Durbin cited judge advocate generals who told him that the “techniques are illegal and violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.”

Caproni first tried to deflect the question to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, saying that “the issue of legality or non-legality is not mine to reach.” But pushed further by Durbin, she stated unequivocally that “they are all abusive”:

DURBIN: I asked you that question. Are they abusive, illegal or violate Geneva Conventions?

CAPRONI: Oh, I’m sorry. I was running them all together, Senator. I would say they are all abusive.

The first crack right there. Once Durbin offers it as an a-or-b-or-c choice, Caproni concedes that it’s abusive (but not, by implication, illegal or a violation of the Geneva Conventions).

But the Durbinator continues. More cat-and-mouse ensues. And ever so smoothly, Durbin extracts the full confession. It is, indeed, illegal:

Durbin then asked her if she considered the techniques torture. Again, Caproni tried to dodge the question, saying “it’s not within my pay grade” to make that determination. Eventually, following more pressure from Durbin, Caproni relented, admitting that “these techniques are clearly not permissible in the United States”:

DURBIN: Do you consider them torture?

CAPRONI: Again, torture has a legal definition, and that’s what OLC has passed on. And it’s not — it’s not within my pay grade to overrule OLC.

DURBIN: And how could it be within the pay grade of those below you to understand whether what they’re doing is torture or not?

CAPRONI: Again, from — the FBI agents’ responsibilities was, one, not to participate. These techniques are clearly not permissible in the United States. We train our agents well. They would have known that none of those techniques were they permitted to participate in.

“Clearly not permissible”. That must mean “illegal”, right?

(2)
In a more serious vein, I believe that Caproni’s testimony is a perfect illustration of how the United States government came to lose its moral compass so completely under the Bush administration.

To those in charge, morality or ethics or conscience or even the law were completely irrelevant concepts. And apparently good people, who knew perfectly well that unconscionable and illegal things were being done, decided it was not their place to speak up or oppose these acts. Knowing perfectly well that something was abusive and illegal, people like Caproni concluded that “the issue of legality or non-legality is not mine to reach”, that such determinations are “not within my pay grade”.

Later, when historians ponder how we as a country allowed ourselves to come morally unraveled in the time of Bush, surely the burning question will be: Why did no one say: “Damned if I will turn a blind eye to war crimes and unconscionable acts just because OLC says they are not war crimes and unconscionable acts!”?

Why did no one say: “I have to do something about this! Because I won’t be able to .live with myself if I don’t”?

And let’s be clear. I’m not saying why didn’t everybody who knew say this to themselves. I’m saying why didn’t just a handful of people find the courage to oppose things they clearly perceived as very, very wrong??