Conspiracies are part of the paranoid's delusion. They are, also, very much a part of the American mindset. From John Winthrop's seventeenth-century claims that Massachusetts Puritans were beset by enemies plotting their destruction to Salmon P. Chase's 1850s allusions (not originally his) of the "slave power's" power over the northern government to Oliver Stone's curious historical reworking of JFK's assassination, conspiracy theories have been perennial.
I don't believe in them. Conspiracies are easy to piece together with circumstantial evidence but depend in the end on both a willingness to believe in rumor, the absence of direct evidence, and a kind of paranoia that makes them acceptable. We may jettison with safety now Winthrop's fears that the pope, all Catholics, and the Pequot Indians were conspiring to undermine the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Someday we may be able to do the same thing with JFK's assassination.
But this long-winded introduction does not mean to suggest that conspiracies do not exist. And the CIA has gone a long way in covering up a huge conspiracy to violate U.S. law, international norms, and human rights in Guantanamo Bay. I refer, of course, to its destruction of videotapes documenting harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay in 2005.
Revelations that the CIA destroyed the tapes came months ago. But it is only now that the relevant due process questions are being raised. The government was under a court order to turn over relevant information in several cases when the CIA began destroying tapes. This willful violation of judicial authority will, of course, come with consequences. At the very least, the government's prosecution of alleged terrorists is now seriously in question. We must beware the state that destroys its own evidence. There is also the question of whether the agents who did this are criminally liable for their actions.
But there is a third problem with this. If the CIA was acting under general orders from the Administration, then we may be witnessing the most egregious misuse of executive authority by this president yet. Of course, no such evidence has yet come to light (to my knowledge). But given that there is significant evidence that "harsh interrogation techniques" (or whatever the euphemism may be) were certainly part of the executive plan on prosecuting the war on terror, then this may well be part of a design. And if it is part of a planned design, then it may be an impeachable offense.
To some degree, I am engaging in rank speculation. But Congress has yet to take serious action on the question of its constitutional responsibilities to contain a president who flouts the laws of the country so willfully. For this reason, it is reasonable to wonder whether this CIA action is simply more evidence (albeit indirect) that Congress is fast becoming the weakest branch of government. One might even wonder if this is part of, well, a design.
Now that would be a conspiracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am still very much eager to know whether Congress raised any objection on the affairs of CIA destroying the video tapes containing harsh interrogation and torture evidence of the prisoners of the Guantanamo Bay.
I do not quite grasp the meaning of Congress being the "weakest branch mentioned above" Does it mean morally weak or weak in terms of the ability to object to the unconstitutional executive authority or CIA's action?
Anyway, if Congress did not speak up against these unconstitutional and inhuman actions intentionally, I dare to conclude that Congress was behind the whole thing considering the fact that Congress has the due responsibility to intervene in such acts.
If Congress, in fact, was involved in this affair, then it sure is the weakest (morally) branch of the government. Then, it must be a part of a design. If Congress was in fact unaware of the executive plans or did not dare to challenge the executive authority, that definitely would be a sign that Congress is the weakest (least powerful ) branch of the government.
Post a Comment