Torture? No way, we do that stuff to Americans...

NPR had a worthwhile segment today over the recently released "torture memos." These memos laid the legal framework for the Bush administration's policy of permitting so-called "enhanced interrogation." One memo in particular made interesting assertions. The memo in question, written by former assistant attorney general, current federal judge Jay Bybee, states that enhanced interrogation techniques such as water boarding, sleep deprivation, slapping, and stress positions can not be labeled as torture because they do not cause prolonged psychological harm.

Bybee backs up his claim by pointing out that over 26,000 U.S. servicemen and women have been subjected to the exact same interrogation techniques at the U.S. Army SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Evade) school. One of the purposes of SERE school is to help members of the military learn to resist enemy interrogation should they be captured. Bybee believes that because these service members have not shown signs of prolonged psychological harm, detainees who are subjected to the same interrogation methods must not suffer from long-term ill effects either.

The flaw in Bybee's logic, as the NPR piece points out, is that attendees of SERE school ultimately have control over their situation in that if the interrogations becomes too much for them to handle, they can quit. Detainees have no such luxury. And it is a stressful situation coupled with a lack of feelings of control which typically lead to prolonged psychological harm. The two interrogation scenarios are thus not as comparable as Bybee thinks.

It will be interesting to see what if anything results from the Bush administration's attempt to codify and legalize torture. Already President Obama has specifically not ruled out prosecution of those former officials who had hand in promoting the use of torture, saying that the decision to prosecute rests with the Attorney General.

Other countries are even considering the prosecution of Bush administration officials for crimes against humanity. Baltasar Garzon, a Spanish judge famous for his investigations and attempts to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity in Spain, Chile, and Argentina, has expressed interest in trying six Bush administration officials for their work in creating a legal system which permitted torture in violation of international law. Will we see Americans on trial someday for crimes against humanity? Do we want to see Americans on trial in an international court? Good questions. Not sure of the answers yet.

Will Joseph Ratzinger be to the Vatican what George W Bush was to the White House?

Apparently enraging the entire Islamic world wasn't enough for this Pope. He has now moved on to the Jews. First, Pope Benedict XVI reinstated the Tridentine Mass, which calls for the conversion of Jews from darkness to Catholicism. Now, the BMOC at the Vatican has un-excommunicated four Bishops, one of whom is a holocaust denier.

If I may, Mr. Pope, allow me to give you some flippant advice. As the head of a church the leader of which (at best) turned a blind eye to Nazi atrocities during WWII, and who is yourself from Germany, and who was a member of the Hitler Youth (even if unenthusiastic about it), perhaps you should have given it a little more thought before rehabilitating a holocaust denier.

On a slightly more serious note, there is more to the title of this post than both Bush and Benedict XVI knowing how to stick in the collective craw of millions of Muslims. They both also followed an immensely popular predecessor (Clinton and John Paul II). And from what I understand Benedict XVI shares W's love of yes men. Recent reports indicate that the Pope has surrounded himself only with men of similar opinion and inclination. This has increased criticisms from many sources, surprisingly enough even from within the Catholic church. Several European Cardinals have publicly criticized the Pope, going so far as to call his decision "disastrous" and saying they have lost faith in Benedict XVI.

I know at least one Catholic reads these ramblings of mine. I would be curious to hear some lay Catholic responses to this situation. If I were one, I would be questioning whether Benedict XVI is the right man to have the power of making "infallible" decisions for the church.