Michael B. Mukasey who, for two decades, was judge and then
attorney general of the United States of America wrote an article where he
seeks to show that “The CIA Interrogations Followed the Law” which is the title
of his article. It also came under the subtitle: “Some of those now criticizing
the program as illegal seem oddly uninterested in the laws they themselves
helped write.” The article was published on December 17, 2014 in the Wall
Street Journal.
Knowing that when he says: “Some of those now criticizing
the program,” he means Senator Dianne Feinstein, and when you juxtapose that
subtitle with a sentence that comes later in the article, a vast window of
fresh perceptions opens to you. What comes into question as a result is the
validity of the system that spawned this whole debate in the first place.
The sentence in question is this: “Sen. Feinstein wins the
argument only by defining herself as both the standard setter and the winner.”
Thus, according to Mukasey, it was Feinstein who participated in the writing of
the laws that no longer interest her. But she took it upon herself to criticize
the program that was set-up based on those laws, and she wins the argument by
defining herself as standard setter and ultimate winner of the argument that
she herself started.
Do you know what this sounds like, my friend? It sounds like
the world talking about America ,
something that happens each time there is an international legal matter
involving that country, or involving Israel
where America is summoned to
crush the due process and get Israel
off the hook. Unfortunately, despite protestations to the effect that America is a nation of laws, the world has lost
faith in the ability of that country, or even its willingness to follow the
laws it seeks to impose on others ... with the exception of Israel , of
course.
We're not talking about small legal matters such as those
that arise when trade disputes flare up between jurisdictions and where
administrative tribunals are set-up to handle such cases. No, we're talking
about matters that involve human rights, and where the cases that come up for
adjudication have universal implications so serious, they sometimes engender
ramifications that lead to interventionist wars under the guise of the “right
to protect” or some other concoctions.
Now, when Mr. Mukasey argues that the CIA followed the law,
he does not mean to say America
followed a law that would be recognized by the world. He means to say that America
followed a set of laws which are subject to the kind of endless hair-splitting
debates that ultimately turn into partisan disputes. This drags on till the end
of the electoral cycle, and one side wins the election. The dispute is then
left without resolution, and shelved to gather dust, perhaps for ever. And what
all this means, is that no one is held accountable, no one is declared
culpable, and no justice is done or seen to have been done.
This being the system that America has set up and called
democracy, it compares poorly with any of the systems which are set-up under
the so-called authoritarian regimes. That is where the cardinal rule is to let
would-be violators know at the outset what the penalties will be for the
actions they choose to take, and by which they may break the law. These may not
be fair penalties but they are well defined, and they are not subject to
hair-splitting by those who will decide your fate behind your back.
In contrast, the so-called democratic system fails to let
you know where the hair-splitting will take you. Thus, you are robbed of the
chance to choose making an informed decision about yourself … ultimately about
your fate. Also where the autocratic system lets you know what you're accused
of, and lets you face your accuser – however horrible he may be – the
democratic system robs you of the dignity of knowing what you're defending
yourself against.
In most cases, you are simply told ... not publicly but with
a whisper in your ear, that you have been displaying bad intentions. You must,
therefore, prove that you had good intentions by publicly groveling and begging
forgiveness for offenses you never knew you committed.