Larger text
Smaller text
Print
E-mail
Torture is the obscenity
Dimitri Vassilaros is a Tribune-Review editorial page editor. He can be reached at dvassilaros@tribweb.com or 412-380-5637. He also blogs at KDKA
A Justice Department memo in 2002 suggested that torture could be legally justified if used on terror suspects. That is the same Justice Department that in Pittsburgh started a jihad against adult entertainment. Does Ashcroft really believe that prisoner abuse is more acceptable than self-abuse?
The memo concluded that international law prohibiting torture could be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations conducted by our intelligence officers. As long as the torture is not equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury -- such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions or death -- darn near anything goes.
It also states that the president enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his commander-in-chief authority. It concludes that since interrogations are a core function of the commander in chief, a criminal statute would infringe on the president's ultimate authority.
Picture "W" with a cattle prod.
The U.S. Senate has asked Ashcroft to turn over the 50-page document containing that advice from his department's lawyers to the Central Intelligence Agency. He refused.
Presumably, Muslim prisoners can be tortured by being forced to watch adult films. Maybe like those that the U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania will introduce as evidence in an upcoming obscenity trial.
A couple of adult film producers based in California are being prosecuted in Pittsburgh by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. The tapes were purchased through the mail as part of an obscenity investigation. News reports suggest the story lines (what there are of them, anyway) cannot be described graphically in a family newspaper. But the action among the consenting adult actors is scripted. It is not real. Repeat after me: It's only a movie, it's only a movie.
The actors were not tortured to make the films, and the customers were not tortured to purchase them. Yet, Ashcroft's department wants to make a statement about what he must see as moral depravity.
I called to speak with Buchanan about the gross inconsistencies between condoning torture and condemning "T & A." But she was out of town on business.
Mark Corallo, the chief spokesman for the Justice Department, said there would be no comment about what specific advice the department provides because it believes that it is confidential. However, you can rest assured, America, that Justice condemns torture and will prosecute any violators within its jurisdiction, he said.
However, the memo makes the case that the president could very well be above the law ... er, within his rights to torture. That means it would not be in Justice's jurisdiction.
Producing and distributing adult films is a victimless crime -- an oxymoron because, if there is no victim, there is no crime.
Your federal government will go across the country from Pittsburgh to Hollywood to prosecute the people who hired and directed the actors playing roles. And yet, Justice will to go to any lengths to rationalize using torture against real people.
Say what you will about the two adult film defendants, at least they did not torture anyone and then try to justify it with tortured logic.
Can Ashcroft make the same claim?
