The Man Behind the Memo

The Man Behind the Memo

President's Day “We're a long way from J.F.K.”

The memo is a chronological account, submitted on July
7, 2004, to Vice Admiral Albert Church, who led a Pentagon investigation into
abuses at the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It reveals
that Mora’s criticisms of Administration policy were unequivocal, wide-ranging,
and persistent. Well before the exposure of prisoner abuse in Iraq’s
Abu Ghraib prison, in April, 2004, Mora warned his superiors at the Pentagon
about the consequences of President Bush’s decision, in February, 2002,
to circumvent the Geneva conventions, which prohibit both torture and “outrages
upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”
He argued that a refusal to outlaw cruelty toward U.S.-held terrorist suspects
was an implicit invitation to abuse. Mora also challenged the legal framework
that the Bush Administration has constructed to justify an expansion of executive
power, in matters ranging from interrogations to wiretapping. He described
as “unlawful,” “dangerous,” and “erroneous”
novel legal theories granting the President the right to authorize abuse.
Mora warned that these precepts could leave U.S. personnel open to criminal
prosecution. In important ways, Mora’s memo is at odds with
the official White House narrative. … THE
MEMO
How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted.

One of the inspirations for my political show was George W. Bush.
What he'd done to the presidency had sickened me. Remembering the Democratic
leaders of yesterday, it seems even truer today. The picture here is one of
the advertisements from my show, which revolves around John F. Kennedy and his
leadership. On President's Day, I'm reminded yet again of the huge disappoint
of George W. Bush's presidency.

Meet Alberto J. Mora, the outgoing general counsel of the United
States Navy. Jane Mayer has done another extraordinary piece for the New Yorker
magazine. It speaks for itself, loudly, clearly and persuasively, as does Mora.

Mora thinks that the media has focussed
too narrowly on allegations of U.S.-sanctioned torture. As he sees it, the
authorization of cruelty is equally pernicious. “To my mind, there’s
no moral or practical distinction,” he told me. “If cruelty
is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy,
it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the
whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes
that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal
dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human
beings, not just in America—even those designated as ‘unlawful
enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception, the whole Constitution
crumbles. It’s a transformative issue.”

Mora makes the critical point that once President Bush made the
decision that the values on which our Constitution were written, founded and
stands, were flexible, lawyers knowing his decision was wrong could no longer
argue for truth.

That's just part of the legacy of President Bush. Happy President's
Day, my fellow Americans. See how far we've fallen.