I Love a Man in a Uniform
TWENTY-SEVEN years ago, in the final days of the Iran hostage crisis, the C.I.A.'s Tehran station chief, Tom Ahern, faced his principal interrogator for the last time. The interrogator said the abuse Mr. Ahern had suffered was inconsistent with his own personal values and with the values of Islam and, as if to wipe the slate clean, he offered Mr. Ahern a chance to abuse him just as he had abused the hostages. Mr. Ahern looked the interrogator in the eyes and said, “We don’t do stuff like that.”
Today, Tom Ahern might have to say: “We don't do stuff like that very often.” Or, “We generally don't do stuff like that.” That is a shame. Virtues requiring caveats are not virtues. Saying a man is honest is a compliment. Saying a man is “generally” honest or honest “quite often” means he lies. The mistreatment of detainees, like honesty, is all or nothing: We either do stuff like that or we do not. It is in our national interest to restore our reputation for the latter. (All opinions here are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Air Force or Defense Department.) …
My policy as the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo was that evidence derived through waterboarding was off limits. That should still be our policy. To do otherwise is not only an affront to American justice, it will potentially put prosecutors at risk for using illegally obtained evidence.
Unfortunately, I was overruled on the question, and I resigned my position to call attention to the issue—efforts that were hampered by my being placed under a gag rule and ordered not to testify at a Senate hearing.
I've wondered why more people in this administration haven't resigned when they've been ordered to do the unspeakable or intolerable. Till now, I've been able to say the costs were too high. I can't do that anymore. If someone in uniform can say, “No,” no one in government can claim the risks are too high. But they will. I guess it's really just a matter of courage.
It's really nice to see that our men in uniform know how to apply that trait even when their duties don't require them to face enemy fire. In fact, it's so nice, I think I'm developing a man-crush on the Colonel.
Don't worry, Mo'. Even if someone asks, I won't tell.
Today, Tom Ahern might have to say: “We don't do stuff like that very often.” Or, “We generally don't do stuff like that.” That is a shame. Virtues requiring caveats are not virtues. Saying a man is honest is a compliment. Saying a man is “generally” honest or honest “quite often” means he lies. The mistreatment of detainees, like honesty, is all or nothing: We either do stuff like that or we do not. It is in our national interest to restore our reputation for the latter. (All opinions here are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Air Force or Defense Department.) …
My policy as the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo was that evidence derived through waterboarding was off limits. That should still be our policy. To do otherwise is not only an affront to American justice, it will potentially put prosecutors at risk for using illegally obtained evidence.
Unfortunately, I was overruled on the question, and I resigned my position to call attention to the issue—efforts that were hampered by my being placed under a gag rule and ordered not to testify at a Senate hearing.
I've wondered why more people in this administration haven't resigned when they've been ordered to do the unspeakable or intolerable. Till now, I've been able to say the costs were too high. I can't do that anymore. If someone in uniform can say, “No,” no one in government can claim the risks are too high. But they will. I guess it's really just a matter of courage.
It's really nice to see that our men in uniform know how to apply that trait even when their duties don't require them to face enemy fire. In fact, it's so nice, I think I'm developing a man-crush on the Colonel.
Don't worry, Mo'. Even if someone asks, I won't tell.
1 Comments:
I've wondered why more people in this administration haven't resigned when they've been ordered to do the unspeakable or intolerable.
I used to wonder about this as well. It finally occurred to me that in order for someone to resign due to personal or moral reasons, when ordered to do the unspeakable or intolerable, they'd have to recognize it as such. I feel that this administration is filled with soulless creatures that do not have the capacity to recognize the unspeakable or intolerable as it applies to others.
Post a Comment
<< Home