Meltdown

Former AG John Ashcroft's meltdown last  night during a speech at Knox College is all over the progressive blogosphere (Kos; Fire Dog Lake;  Hullabaloo) today.  While I try to refrain from cut-and-paste posting, the scene is so illustrative of the Bush administration's mindset that I'm going to reprint the whole exchange.

From Kos diarist Elsinora (a 20-year-old college student who wound up playing the key role in yesterday's events) comes this:

But the most common questions, as expected, related to his position on "enhanced interrogation techniques," a subject which he completely avoided in his speech and a subject which provoked him into flashes of anger and irritation whenever a student brought it up.  One student, Tom, asked about the ABC news story from a few weeks ago, detailing how Ashcroft had discussed specific methods of torture with Rice, Powell, Tenet, and Rumsfeld in the White House:

TOM: This story was made public by ABC a few weeks ago.  It claims that you, Rice, Tenet and others met in the White House to discuss different methods of "enhanced interrogation," is that correct?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Correct?  Is what correct?  Is it correct that this story ran on ABC?  I don't know that.  I don't know anything about it!  Is it a real story?  When was this story, huh? Huh?

TOM: Um, early April, April 9th, I think...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) You think?  You think?  You don't even know!  Next question!

TOM: The article says that you discussed "whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning"...

ASHCROFT: I said, next question!

Another student asked if Ashcroft's position on torture violated the Geneva Conventions or other international laws:

ASHCROFT: No.  No it doesn't violate the Geneva Conventions.  As for other laws, well, the U.S. is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture.  And that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the Senate to be ratified, and when the Senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow.  Now, I don't have a copy of the convention in front of me...

ME: (holding up my copy) I do! (boisterous applause and whistling from the audience)  Would you like to borrow it?

ASHCROFT: (after a pause) Uh, you keep a hold of it.  Now, as I was saying, I don't have it with me but I'm pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage...

A STUDENT FROM THE AUDIENCE: Liar!  You liar! (the student is shushed by the audience)

ASHCROFT: So no, waterboarding does not violate international law.

Now as dday points out over at Hullabaloo:

Well, that's just not true.  The UN human rights chief has said waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture.  The definition of the UN Convention Against Torture is right here.

"severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession...."

And members of the UN Committee Against Torture have agreed that waterboarding falls under it.

But now, back to Ashcroft.  Elsinora asks a question:

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I'd like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students.  It was uncalled for--we can disagree civilly, we don't need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents.  One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about "lasting physical damage"...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?

ME: No, I don't.  Do you happen to know what they are?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don't have them memorized, no.  I don't have time to go around memorizing random legal facts.  I just don't want these people in the audience to go away saying, "He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!"  Because that's not true. It's a lie.  If you don't have the reservations, you don't have anything.  Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but...

ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause)  This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal.  After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan.  Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture.  And among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question.  I don't mind, but it's not a question.

ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment.  The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."  One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information.  Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country--exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do--do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of "Good question!")

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here.  You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges.  We don't do anything like what you described.

ME: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said?  "Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them."  That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!

ME: Sir, other reports of the time say...

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of "Answer her fucking question!" from the audience)  Read it!

ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!

ME: "The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."

ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that?  You hear it? "Forced!"  If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...does this college have an anatomy class?  If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...

ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano's sentence was unjust?  Answer the question. (pause)

ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It's not a fair question; there's no comparison.  Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)

More than any of the other members of Bush's Torture Cabinet--more than Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet Powell or Cheney--Ashcroft appears to have had some sense that the government's approval of waterboarding and other torture techniques was clearly illegal.  ABC News' story about the torture discussions contains this:

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

History probably will not judge Ascroft et als. kindly.  Perhaps, though, that the judgment that may now be more immediately on Ashcroft's mind is the judgment of a court rendering a verdict on a charge of war crimes.  If a Spanish court could try indict Pinochet, why couldn't courts in another country indict Ashcroft & Co.?  Clearly, the man is scared--and perhaps even morally aware of his own guilt--and hiding his fear behind a wall of bluster.