When yet more Bush-era OLC memos justifying as the official policy of the United States what many in the rest of the world believe to be torture (myself included) were released on Thursday, I tried to make sense of how John Ashcroft — a devout and committed fundamentalist Christian– could find himself approving what those memos recount. The next day (Good Friday by the Orthodox church’s calendar and one week after Good Friday by the western church’s calendar) the answer leaped out at me.
John Ashcroft is the Caiaphas of Torture.
For many of the Christian faith, the story of Jesus’ arrest, trial, torture, and death are retold in their entirety on Good Friday, as recounted in the Gospel of John. One of the central figures in the story is Caiaphas, the high priest at the time. But he makes his first appearance in John’s story much earlier, as Jesus’ popularity is becoming problematic for the religious and political Powers That Be in Jerusalem. As the gospel story recounts things:
. . . the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council, and said, ‘What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.’ But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, ‘You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.’ (John 11:47-50, NRSV)
I can hear Caiaphas in my head, arguing passionately with the council members. "Never mind the commands of Moses: ‘you shall not murder’ and ‘you shall not bear false witness.’ Never mind the words of the prophets, calling for justice and righteousness in our laws and courts. We’re facing an emergency here — one that threatens the temple, the city of Jerusalem, and the nation as a whole. Extraordinary measures are called for. We have to look past legalisms, and do what needs to be done. If this is what is needed to keep our nation safe, then that’s what we need to do." Three verses later, the gospel writer tells the readers that Caiaphas’ colleagues agreed: "So from that day on they planned to put him to death."
In Bart Gellman’s excellent book Angler, he recounts the famous hospital visit by Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales, where they tried and failed to get the ailing Ashcroft to re-assert his power over acting Attorney General James Comey and reauthorize the warrantless wiretapping program. After Ashcroft backed Comey, and Card and Gonzales left, Gelman notes a blessing that FBI Director Mueller gave to Ashcroft: "In every man’s life there comes a time when the good Lord tests him. You passed your test tonight."
Perhaps so. But I have to wonder: did Ashcroft finally act on behalf of justice that night, because he was tired of the years he spent being a modern-day Caiaphas?
Sign the petition telling Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate torture here.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
I would like to know how Alberto Gonzales was chosen as a target by the Spanish prosecutor for these sins, but John Ashcroft was not.
Bravo Peterr. Its a wonderful analogy!
Oh, and beautiful post Peter !
Top o The Morning Mr.Clausen!
I tried to make sense of how John Ashcroft — a devout and committed fundamentalist Christian– could find himself approving what those memos recount.
John Ashcroft’s God routinely sentences people to an eternity of torture. He’s being holy.
Addington is the one who requested the codification of the immoral and the absurd. And we all know who he was working for.
easy there, we don’t attack anyone’s religion and every single retelling of all religions show depravity in history
The Beast and The Blightest
Caiaphas had the best songs in Jesus Christ Superstar.
wow. I was just there
Good one, Peterr. Thank you.
Is it not at all unusual for someone openly and blatantly claiming to be devout, even while knowingly acting otherwise behind the scenes, suddenly to “get religion” for real if and when he finds himself in extremis and needing a special-delivery salvage blessing, as it were?
The man was ill, probably in considerable pain and frightened, as well as acutely aware that the charade in which he had participated was quite possibly unraveling.
Crudely put: pants AND suspenders time ASAP for a devout-enough-to-be-truly-frightened, previously wayward soul.
This coming from a compassionate heathen, I invite you to shoot my crazy thought down at will. I will not be offended in the slightest.
He’s not a christian judging by his fruits. For Christ’s sake he lost his election to a victim of one of those plane crashes that always seems to benefit Republican contenders.
The thing to understand about these self proclaimed types is they flock together and everyone not in their group is the” other”. You don’t murder a member of the group but if you kill someone out of the group it’s not really murder because GOD made them less than human therefore it’s sorta like they are depleted uranium fodder.
Bush always talked like that because when dealing with Carla Ray Tucker he judged she could never be his type of christian so he mocked an “other” as he dispatched her.
Cut the protesting, quit the excuses.
-G
Perhaps so. But I have to wonder: did Ashcroft finally act on behalf of justice that night, because he was tired of the years he spent being a modern-day Caiaphas?
Wasn’t Ashcroft deathly ill?
Maybe he wasn’t tired. Maybe he was afraid to meet his maker and suffer eternal damnation.
What gets me is WHY Obama thinks he even has the authority or power to obstruct the prosecution of ALL these scumbags…Oh, that’s right…I get it (slipped my mind for a few a few fleeting seconds)…He really does want to be, or at least think he’s… KING!! Does that make Eric Holder the court JESTER as well as one of the ENABLERS?
Jonathen Turley is right on with the following comments taken from his blog:
United Nations Official Strongly Suggests That Obama Is In Violation International Law in Refusing to Investigate War Crimes
Published 1, April 19, 2009 Constitutional Law , International , Justice , Lawyering , Politics , Society
U.N. special rapporteur Manfred Nowak has gone public with a stinging indictment of President Barack Obama’s failure to investigate and prosecute officials for the American torture program, a clear war crime under existing treaties. Obama is in open violation of international law due to his failure to uphold the clear legal and moral obligations of this country.
For many months, I have been received a great deal of flak over this very same point (here and here: that Obama is in clear violation of international law. Nowak has now added a much more significant voice to the call for investigation and prosecution: “The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court.”
Former Bush officials, the Red Cross, the vast majority of legal experts, and numerous NGOs have confirmed these interrogations as premeditated torture. Obama and Holder have both declared waterboarding to be torture. The failure to simply appoint an independent investigator and allow the law to be enforced without concern for politics or passions. It is obvious that Obama does not want to allow an investigation that would likely lead to an indictment of Bush officials and probably Bush himself. If Obama wants to excuse war crimes, he can take the personal responsibility and pardon Bush and these officials — tying his own legacy to the commission of torture. However, his blocking of an investigation is an international outrage and puts us into the same category as countries like Serbia. Obama has the authority to pardon crimes, not obstruct efforts to investigate crimes for political purposes. This may not be politically advantageous for Obama, but these treaties do not exist for his comfort or advantage. We made a pledge to the world that we would aggressively pursue any war criminals — even if they happened to be made in the America.
The “Christian” response will be that these terrorists and their “associates should not be compared to Jesus. But remember that within their own ranks they had individuals who would be considered “terrorists” by the Romans and the Preisthood. Amongst the Apostles were former Zealots and Ascarii (Judas) who were known to assassinate those they felt to be collorators. There were also those who likely misconstrued the claim of Jesus’ followers that he was Messiah (which had military as well as apocalyptic meanings).
And reading those memos there was no little effort to play the role of Proconsul Pilate, as well.
In the time of Christ he had a great deal to say about money changers and greed. Today most of the “christian” leadership is jumping up and down in unison over abortion and LGBT issues. What did Christ have to say about this? When was the last time any church leadership made a protestation about these practices? Any banksters denied communion? How do you spell hypocrisy? Things don’t necessarily change do they.
there is a perspective I had not even considered, these poweres ARE SEPERATE
the justice dept does NOT answer to obama, obama DOES answer to the justice dept
think about that
When was the last time any church leadership made a protestation about these practices?
National Religious Campaign Against Torture is calling for a Commission of Inquiry
The argument for torture is that the government derived valuable information from it. But all you have to do is look at the lame and wrong lists Bush used to give about what information was so obtained to know that, in fact, nothing, not a single useful fact came from torture (or from domestic spying for that matter).
At the same time, our torture was the principal recruiting tool for terrorists and diminished our standing and moral authority greatly throughout the world.
Men like Ashcroft were not acting hastily in an emergency. They panicked. They ignored commonplace knowledge and made stupid decision after stupid decision. And what is really telling is that after the immediate aftermath of 9/11, they persisted in these bad decisions for years even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they did not work, worse were counterproductive, and finally flew in the face of all our values.
The hospital scene with Ashcroft is very dramatic but the truth is that Ashcroft, Comey, and Mueller had all crossed far beyond the line in what they were willing to do and how far they were willing to go to subvert the Constitution, the laws of this country, and the treaties we had entered into. And what’s more although they baulked in this one instance, they all continued to pursue and support extremely illegal programs and policies.
Christianity has nothing to do with this. Christians throughout the centuries have repeatedly demonstrated that they are as ready to engage in torture as anyone else.
Does this list come close to the anti abortion coalitions?
http://www.nrcat.org/index.php…..038;id=292
Is there an anti-bankster / greed coalition?
Sorry I missed you. Had to go watch my daughter’s choir in church. Top of the mornin to you too. You and Marcy are top-notch writers in a great community. Claus
This will destroy the MIC- CONGRESS two party system and our endless war economy or we will eat ourselves to death from the inside, like a cancer. Nancy Pelosi ,The traitor who protected bush is in the same line as bush, cheney, yoo addington, powell.
Have you ever seen the gallows picture of the Lincoln conspirators? Seems we could do assembly line Justice back in the day?
mike, forgive me – after working 3 doubles in a row, I’m a little fuzzy headed and don’t understand your question.
am chewing on a diary. I think the religious community could prove to be a powerful ally (one not easily dismissed, as we will surely be) on this issue.
More signees urging a Commission of Inquiry
Was Ashcroft under the influence of opiates? Most certainly. Was he scared. Probably. Is he a true Christian? Don’t know.
Did his stand, stress induced or not, stop Bushco? No. Did his overall participation in Bushco support it? Yes.
Seems like we are splitting hairs here. Ashcroft is a tool. He may not know it but he is. And he can’t sing.
Oh John Ashcroft certainly did when he questioned weather they should be talking like that in the White House.
I myself am glad we have become so civilized that we no longer use nails in our crucifixion of innocent Gitmo souls rather by hanging them by their handcuffs, behind their back, we display our concern for the pain the spikes would have caused.
Great sermon, Peterr…love it.
I’m wondering if his missus knocked some sense into him, whilest he was at the hospital. Like, if God gets you through this crisis, buster, you better turn your act around. And, I mean it!
I see nothing to argue with. Nicely put, even while furthering the annoying use of Rummy-induced rhetorical question overload. A personal fault of mine. I know. Get over it. It’s here to stay, sigh.
the singer is no longer something up with we must put. gawlee he WUZ bad, wasn’t he, and they. where’s the rest of their lil’ garage-band of singers NOW?! out dammed spew!
Good comment, Mary. There is split hair relief, though. Hot oil treatment. No, wait, that’s torture.
Bye guys. Off to hear sonnyboy and friends in recital. That’ll bring the sun out, if only in the heart.
Save the world while I’m gone, please. I’m so sick of these nasty-tempered would-be leaders. More nice, please.
In recent news, Ashcroft has opened legal offices in St. Louis and Kansas City. Maybe Alberto can find a job there, since apparently no one will hire either of them.
BTW, tjbs, nails leave scars. scars are evidence of torture. curious how most of the torture techniques left no visible traces, nothing that would show up in court weeks or months later. i’m just sayin’…
I gather that Mark, Matthew and Luke wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by the Romans in 79 C.E. John, on the other hand, wrote after it was history. So the threat of destroying the nation rather than “one man” was a palpably real, heart-rending choice, one not available to the real Jerusalem.
Mr. Ashcroft’s actions didn’t lead to the physical destruction of his God. They did enable the partial destruction of his legal temple and, arguably, his soul. Mr. Ashcroft has a choice not open to Jacob Marley. He can seek to make amends, or sit back and continue to become wealthy pretending to oversee large companies “reform” themselves rather than face criminal sanctions from a forgiving Caesar.
Very good take on the Caiaphas-Ashcroft connection. Today, you might have connected Caiaphas & his ruling priestly council to the old Villagers on “This Week with Stephanopoulos.” Just as the head priests advised Caiaphas “not [to seize Jesus] during the [Passover] festival, otherwise a riot might occur among the people,” [Matthew 26:4-5] the ABC Villagers, with Noonan leading the way, deemed it best to leave as “mysterious” the depths of our own depravity. Better not to know, less we peasants might riot.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
Interesting take on Ashcroft. I believe that the most non Christian person in the mix might be Colin Powell, who KNOWINGLY brought false witness against the Iraqis.
Enjoy.
Amen. Biggest disappointment of all. If anyone had the ‘gravitas’ to stand up for truth & justice, it was Powell, and he ‘poofed.’