“Nothing Can Justify Torture”
\nAn Interview With Noam Chomsky on Obama\u2019s Human Rights Record
\nby ERIC BAILEY – 12 December, 2012 – Counter Punch<\/p>\n
Professor Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He was educated at the University of Philadelphia and at Harvard University as a Harvard Junior Fellow. He earned his PhD in Linguistics from the University of Philadelphia in 1955. He has spent the 57 years since then teaching at MIT. In addition to his academic work in linguistics, Professor Chomsky has been a noted political activist and philosopher, gaining national recognition in 1967 over his opposition to the Vietnam War and since then has regularly spoken out against US foreign and domestic policies and mainstream American mass media. Between his academic career and his work as a political activist and dissident, he has published over 100 books. On the eve of the 2012 US presidential election, he discussed with Eric Bailey of Torture Magazine America\u2019s human rights record under the administration of President Obama and the military intervention policies that have seen increased use during the Arab Spring.<\/em> NC:<\/strong> Obama\u2019s policies have been approximately the same as Bush\u2019s, though there have been some slight differences, but that\u2019s not a great surprise. The Democrats supported Bush\u2019s policies. There were some objections on mostly partisan grounds, but for the most part, they supported his policies and it\u2019s not surprising that they have continued to do so. In some respects Obama has gone even beyond Bush. The NDAA, which you mentioned, was not initiated by Obama, (when it passed Congress, he said he didn\u2019t approve of it and wouldn\u2019t implement it) but he nevertheless did sign it into law and did not veto it. It was pushed through by hawks, including Joe Lieberman and others. In fact, there hasn\u2019t been that much of a change. The worst part of the NDAA is that it codified \u2013 or put into law \u2013 what had already been a regular practice. The practices hadn\u2019t been significantly different. The one part that received public attention is what you mentioned, the part that permits the indefinite detention of American citizens, but why permit the indefinite detention of anybody? It\u2019s a gross violation of fundamental human rights and civil law, going all the way back to the Magna Carta in the 13th Century, so it\u2019s a very severe attack on elementary civil rights, both under Bush and under Obama. It\u2019s bipartisan!<\/p>\n As for the killings, Obama has sharply increased the global assassination campaign. While it was initiated by Bush, it has expanded under Obama and it has included American citizens, again with bipartisan support and very little criticism other than some minor criticism because it was an American. But then again, why should you have the right to assassinate anybody? For example, suppose Iran was assassinating members of Congress who were calling for an attack on Iran. Would we think that\u2019s fine? That would be much more justified, but of course we\u2019d see that as an act of war. The real question is, why assassinate anyone? The government has made it very clear that the assassinations are personally approved by Obama and the criteria for assassination are very weak. If a group of men are seen somewhere by a drone who are, say, loading something into a truck, and there is some suspicion that maybe they are militants, then it\u2019s fine to kill them and they are regarded as guilty unless, subsequently, they are shown to be innocent. That\u2019s the wording that the United States used and it is such a gross violation of fundamental human rights that you can hardly talk about it.<\/p>\n The question of due process actually did arise, since the US does have a constitution and it says that no person shall be deprived of their rights without due process of law \u2013 again, this goes back to 13th Century England \u2013 so the question arose, \u201cWhat about due process?\u201d The Obama Justice Department\u2019s Attorney General, Eric Holder, explained that there was due process in these cases because they are discussed first at the Executive Branch. That\u2019s not even a bad joke! The British kings from the 13th Century would have applauded. \u201cSure, if we talk about it, that\u2019s due process.\u201d And that, again, passed without controversy. …more<\/a><\/p>\n
\n
\nEB:<\/strong> The US presidential elections are almost upon us and the last four years have seen significant changes in American Federal policy in regards to human rights. One of the few examples of cooperation between the Democratic and Republican Parties over the last four years has been the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. This bill has given the United States military the power to arrest American citizens, indefinitely, without charge, trial, or any other form of due process of law and the Obama Administration has and continues to fight a legal battle in Federal Court to prevent that law from being declared unconstitutional. Obama authorized the assassination of three American citizens, including Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son, admittedly all members of Al Qaeda, \u2013 all without judicial review. Additionally, the Guantanamo Bay prison remains open, the Patriot Act has been extended, and the TSA has expanded at breakneck speeds. What is your take on America\u2019s human rights record over the past four years and can you contrast Obama\u2019s policies with those of his predecessor, George W. Bush?<\/p>\n