Jeremy Wisnewski: “Human Rights and Linguistic Subterfuge in the Bush League” Now Availabe


The free podcast of Dr. Jeremy Wisnewski’s lecture is now available from the OSU iTunes store (just go down to Lectures and Courses, click on the Ideas Matter icon, and you can download a free copy of the lecture.)

In this presentation, Wisnewski analyzes former President Bush’s weekly radio addresses, Justice Department Memos, U.S. federal statues, and international law covering the treatment of prisoners and the rules of war, to establish that the Bush administration intentionally engaged in an attempt to circumvent human rights and solidify the supremacy of the executive branch of the government over all others.

He maintains that the Bush league deliberately violated the Geneva Conventions and, as such, committed war crimes. In addition, the Justice Department under Bush, drafted policy memos that justified the use of interrogation techniques that were tantamount to torture as defined by the United Nations.

At the end of the talk, Wisnewski called for members of the Bush administration to be tried on war crimes, either by the United States itself, or by other nations, if they are ever to travel abroad (in the way that Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in England for human rights abuses he had conducted in Chile).

Listen in to this provocative lecture and leave your thoughts!



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “Jeremy Wisnewski: “Human Rights and Linguistic Subterfuge in the Bush League” Now Availabe

  1. Dennis

    I asked the first question of Dr. Wisnewski following his prepared talk, and I wanted to follow up. I had asked him what the consequences were for the U.S. not prosecuting anyone involved in the committing of war crimes/torture, and if I recall correctly, he essentially said that we’d lose standing in the world.

    I don’t want to understate the consequences of losing standing in the world, for sure, but really? That’s it? That strikes me as a political scientist’s answer, not a philosopher’s, or at the least the answer of a very committed pragmatist.

    So, are there other answers out there? Or is the ‘losing standing’ argument more compelling and broader than I give it credit for?

  2. Dennis

    Oh, and the bit I forgot in that first comment: Thanks to Dr. Wisnewski for the talk. It was good, if, of course, a bit depressing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s