Tortured logic.(investigation and political effects of Abu Ghraib war prisoner abuses)

INVESTIGATIONS and prosecutions are still proceeding in the matter of Abu Ghraib, and in other alleged cases of the abuse of military prisoners. The perpetrators should be punished: both those who committed the abuses and anyone who, through sins of commission or omission, bore responsibility for them. Critics of the Bush administration have, however, rushed to the judgment that President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, and their aides encouraged the abuse. On the evidence so far, the charge is a calumny.

The chief evidence for the Bush circle's guilt is the so-called "torture memo" in which Justice Department lawyers presented an analysis of domestic and international laws against torture. A related memo from the Pentagon is also adduced as evidence. The memos argued that some harsh interrogation techniques do not count as torture: The law distinguishes between merely "cruel," "degrading," and "inhuman" treatment on one hand, and torture on the other. The lawyers argued that international treaties against torture have to be read so as not to conflict with the president's constitutional responsibilities as commander-in-chief. They suggested, finally, that a defendant charged with torture may be able to plead successfully that the torture was necessary.

The Washington Post editorialized of Bush's appointees, "Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes." It added, "Even on paper, the administration's reasoning will provide a ready excuse for dictators." Post columnist Anne Applebaum said that we should "connect the dots: They lead from the White House to the Pentagon to Abu Ghraib.... They don't, it is true, make a complete picture." No kidding. The lines between the dots are so far a product of the critics' will for them to exist.

The memos were attempts to determine what the law is, not what interrogators and prison guards should do. Since not ...