Die Frage, welcher Vergleich für die derzeitige amerikanische Adminstration angemessener ist, stellt sich angesichts der neuen Dokumente zum Thema Folter. Erfreulicherweise hat die jüngste Entscheidung* des Supreme Courts gezeigt, dass die amerikanische Demokratie noch funktioniert – wenn auch nach einer jahrelangen Schrecksekunde.

Die New York Review of Books berichtet in jeder Ausgabe ausführlich über die diktatorischen Anwandlungen des Weißen Hauses:

Reading through the memoranda written by Bush administration lawyers on how prisoners of the „war on terror“ can be treated is a strange experience. The memos read like the advice of a mob lawyer to a mafia don on how to skirt the law and stay out of prison. Avoiding prosecution is literally a theme of the memoranda. Americans who put physical pressure on captives can escape punishment if they can show that they did not have an „intent“ to cause „severe physical or mental pain or suffering.“ And „a defendant could negate a showing of specific intent…by showing that he had acted in good faith that his conduct would not amount to the acts prohibited by the statute.“

[…]

Another theme in the memoranda, an even more deeply disturbing one, is that the President can order the torture of prisoners even though it is forbidden by a federal statute and by the international Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a party. [Anthony Lewis, Making Torture Legal**]

Sehr deprimierend zu lesen ist auch der Bericht The Road to Abu Ghraib von Human Rights Watch.

* Link ist „expired“
** Der Artikel ist mittlerweile Teil des kostenpflichtigen NYRB-Archivs.