Balkinization
an unanticipated consequence of
Jack M. Balkin
E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Ian Ayres: ian.ayres at yale.edu
Mary Dudziak: mdudziak at law.usc.edu
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Mark Graber: mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman: marty.lederman at comcast.net
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
Neil Netanel netanel at law.ucla.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at princeton.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Brian Tamanaha: tamanahb at stjohns.edu
Mark Tushnet: mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
In response to an ACLU FOIA request for the CIA Inspector General report on interrogation techniques, virtually the only thing the Bush Administration is willing to disclose to the public is that we waterboarded certain detainees. Everything else is redacted. Do they not appreciate how chilling and absurd this is -- that the only thing they're willing to acknowledge is that they committed the most serious war crimes?
With all the red ink expended by George W's Administration on the ever growing budget deficits since Clinton's surplus, where did the Bush Administration find the black ink for all this redacting?
There is already adequate evidence that many detainees have died while under our custody..some violently.
No, waterboarding is a stalking horse; there are worse things we have done, permitted to be done by others acting as our proxies, or done at the final links in the chain of custody.
Perhaps the greatest horrors (and the least defencible) are the outrages perpetrated on those that were in fact entirely innocent ... and those that were killed, rather than compliantly "spilling the beans" so that the maladministratin can at least make the claim: "See! It worked! Look at the lives saved!" (claims that are in themselves rather dubious, not to mention irrelevant as to legality of such).
As in just about every other release of information from this WH, one must always remember that we get the best, not the worst. That means that the redacted items are worse than the waterboarding they are 'fessing up to, and the only reason we know about the waterboard is because the beans were already spilled. How many prisoners have already died that we know about, between Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and Baghram? Lots more than would be killed by this technique alone. So I'll agree Bamage is right.
For shag, the Bushies had to run red ink budgets because they used all the black for redactions and deathless prose arguing executive privilege motions.