In the sorry history of interviews with national security hacks from both political parties, this interview with Michael Hayden, former head of both the NSA and the CIA, on All Things Considered tonight has to stand among the worst of many self-serving book tours.
The interview is fairly uniformly odious, but the worst section is when Hayden recounts his admonition to his CIA successor, Leon Panetta.
By this logic, couldn't KGB or Gestapo torturers claim legal cover that they were just following orders from their legitimate Stalinist or Nazi governments? Maybe someone who spent his career embedded in the military and intelligence communities should have been more familiar with the first four Nuremberg Principles.
The interview is fairly uniformly odious, but the worst section is when Hayden recounts his admonition to his CIA successor, Leon Panetta.
I simply said: "Do not use the word 'torture' and 'CIA' in the same sentence ever again. You can object to some of the enhanced interrogation techniques. You can, in your heart of hearts, believe they meet some legal definition of torture. But Leon, you're taking over a workforce that did these things in good faith. They did these things with the assurance of the attorney general that they indeed were not torture. Do not accuse them of felonies."
By this logic, couldn't KGB or Gestapo torturers claim legal cover that they were just following orders from their legitimate Stalinist or Nazi governments? Maybe someone who spent his career embedded in the military and intelligence communities should have been more familiar with the first four Nuremberg Principles.
Principle I"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."Principle II"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."Principle III"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."Principle IVMain article: Superior Orders "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".
No comments:
Post a Comment