I keep getting e-mails from people who think we should stop pressing Obama on torture. The basic argument is, would you rather have this inquiry or would you rather have health care? I think it's becoming clear that we may not necessarily need Obama, himself, to launch an inquiry. But be that as it may, I want to push back against this idea that the only job of a great politician is to set a list of achievable priorities. It's, of course, a large part of the job--but the other part is making sure as many of those priorities get done as possible.
I expect a lot out of Obama, mostly because of what I saw in the campaign. He was not a politician simply capable of taking what was given to him. Not to rehash this, but that was I saw in Hillary. Obama was the politician who was capable of creating more, of expanding the coalition. People laughed at a lot of us Obama supporters when we talked about expanding the map. I begrudge any of that. In 2004, none of us thought that a Democrat running in 2008 could win--not just Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania--but Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana. Had someone told us this would happen, we would have assumed it was some grizzled white war hero, not a black community organizer, who'd done this. You don't get to win, in the manner Obama won, and not have some demands put on you,
I believe that while a good politician accomplishes what is possible, a great one expands the realm of possibility. He doesn't simply accept the lines of argument as they're drawn and hew to the side with the most soldiers, he tries to redraw those lines to benefit his ideals. Obama's jobs isn't simply to spend his own political capital, it's to grow his capital, and by extension, the moral weight of his ideals. Perhaps pushing torture investigations would make passing health care harder. But this is the business he chose. This is the business of becoming great. And after what happened last year, we have the right to expect more of him. We have the right to demand more.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I agree that his job is to get as much done as possible, but when I think back to the campaign, and his long list of to do's, prosecuting bush et al for war crimes wasn't something that I recall him banging on very much. And I think a good politician also knows when to dig his heels in and when keep it moving. Think "Drill baby Drill", only more important to you. I just doubt that he'll loose much sleep if 8 years from now nobody's gone to jail behind this, but he's knocked off a bunch of the things that he's been highlighting.
That said, I don't think you should stop pressing if this is more important to you than it is to me. His job is to get as many of his priorities done as possible. Your job is to make your priorities, his.
He didn't campaign on doing a stimulus package, either. He's adapted his plans to new information as it has arisen.
I think he talked quite a bit about getting the economy back on track, right? Some people even think that had the economy not tanked McCain would've had a much better shot at winning the whole thing.
He also talked about restoring America's image in the world.
I think your missing my point. He has said, with specificity, a great number of things that he wanted to see happen. One of them was not prosecutions for torture. In fact, while he's been a little ambiguous on the issue he has said more to intimate that he'd like not to see prosecutions than he's said to indicate that he does want to see them. So given what we know about the man based on what he's actually said, there is little evidence that prosecutions are a priority of his. So if in his judgement, this is a low value fight with a high cost, why would he fight it?
He probably knows more now than we'll ever know about what happened in those prisons and if he hasn't been shocked into demanding retriibution at this point he probably won't be.
So the only real in for those of you who want to see prosecutions happen is to change the cost of not prosecuting. That, I think, is a case to be made to the american people, moreso than to him. Maybe by getting the information out there and hoping it strikes some sort of moral outrage in those of us who are not now outraged.
He took the oath of office, which makes the Constitution a higher priority than any campaign promise. The Constitution requires us to comply with treaties. Treaties compel us to prosecute torture.
It's not a matter of priorities, it's a matter of fundamental integrity and decency, with everyone who has those lining up on just one side. It's up to Obama whether he wants to pass this test, but he fails, he doesn't deserve to succeed at anything else.
We have the right to expect and demand more on the national level. We also have the responsibility to do more in our communities. Last year was the first time I engaged in a political campaign. I donated money, registered voters and phone banked potential voters. After Obama was elected, I felt my job was done. I was wrong. My job as an active member of my community is ongoing. Then-Senator Obama challenged and expanded my ideas (and ideals) about what to expect in a president. Working on his campaign also helped me realize and accept the responsiblity of being a good neighbor. What I'm saying (though not very well) is that while I ask more of President Obama, I ask more of myself as well.
This runs deeper than being a "great politician" as important as that can be.
Upholding the law is part of being a decent public servant. It's not even greatness, it's what should be expected.
We may lose some Blue Dog votes on healthcare (the GOP ain't biting no matter what happens) but we regain a functioning government.
As it stands Obama has, perhaps unintentionally, struck another blow against the separation of powers.
From what I understand DOJ was furious when administration officials actually answered question on who could be prosecuted, a decision which is legally out of their hands.
Are those few votes worth taking another bite out of our Constitution?
Perhaps, this goes back to the idea posed in an earlier post. History is not shaped by a single individual. Perhaps President Obama for reasons of such understanding, or for a lesser expediency, has put this in the hands of the American people. Perhaps it is up to us to show leadership on this issue.
You know, with respect to President Obama I've been quite willing to withhold judgment, allow him some time, and give him all the trust that was inspired in me during the campaign. I've kept mum when I've disagreed with him on policy. There have been times when I have had a sneaking suspicion, a little voice in the back of my head that has said, "he's part of the system now." I've stomped on that voice and told it to keep quiet until things shake out a little bit.
The torture issue is the first time I've felt that he is colluding with seriously twisted, f*cked up, immoral, criminal elements of our government. It's not a good feeling. And I want him to stop.
He doesn't need to lead the charge on this, and it appears that he won't have to... but he simply cannot cover it up and give us the old "move along, nothing to see here". If he does I am quite sure it will come back to bite him.
Same here. It makes me queasy.
You know, I don't want a government that tortures people to get bigger. If it turns out that torture is okay, and if the president does it it isn't a crime, then I guess I'm going to have to switch from being a social democrat to a libertarian.
But apparently I'm alone in thinking that way. There's something seriously messed up about a beltway consensus in which being evil is a precondition for having power--that if you aren't "serious" about how absolutely necessary it was to torture people, then you can't be trusted to reform health care. It's no longer good enough to be corrupted by power, you have to be absolutely corrupt and depraved you get any power to begin with.
Excellent observation and it certainly seems to be true.
Cheney and his fellow members of The Project for the New American Century actually believed they were men of destiny. God ordained them to create the new world order. The rest of it was their doing whatever they thought was necessary for the Empire. And, of course, anyone who is not like them has as much value as a shelter dog. Corrupt and depraved? I certainly think so. Others might just call it extreme arrogance. Maybe a bit delusional as well.
Thank you, CitizenE. This is Al Giordano/The Field's line. Obama organized us in his campaign, now his supporters have to help organize/push/protest/make ourselves known in order to direct him. This will be especially important with health care. There has to be a groundswell of public support to push this thing through, so that Obama can say to the health care companies, as he said to the bankers, "Look I'm the only thing between you and the pitchforks." "Between privilege and the pitchforks" is a good way to sum up his role.
I think we have an obligation to be realistic.
They're won't be any big protests on torture or healthcare, Obama knows it and we all know it.
It'll just be the usual suspect who will be promptly pigeonholed into "the far left". A label even the Obama administration is complicit in supporting.
Sometime leadership means following the people, and sometimes it means leading from the front.
Nonetheless, I view the torture issue as a test of the American populace. We have the right to clamor for aggresive prosecution; people in the 5th estate such as Sullivan, Digby, Hilzoy, Rod Dreher, and TN have the absolute right to clamor for more from our President, while educating the populace; the Justice Department has the right to follow up on the public record; Senators and Congresspeople the right to raise this issue and conduct investigations, but if the will of the people were clear, investigations and prosecutions would occur. It is not simply the President being complicit if this issue is not pursued on the executive level (and one can argue this is a judicial not an executive matter), but the American people as well.
We live in a representative democracy, which has as its heart a deeply ingrained political culture based on the concept of basic human rights. It has for the past century been considered the flower of Western Civilization that has led to the jury trial from the Greek epoch, the Magna Carta, and more recently the Nuremberg Trials, and Geneva Conventions. The fundamental religious leaning of our populace, Christianity, has as its most basic tenets to do unto others as one would have done unto oneself and in repsonse to the old saw of an eye for an eye the counsel to turn the other cheek. The father of our country, George Washington, in the war to establish these states famously and for the public record rejected the torture of captured British soldiers. The response to institutionalizing torture at the highest level of our political culture now that the information is out in the open for all to see, what President Obama did, is in the end on us.
What a person chooses to do, whether private citizens or elected leader, is on them.
Citizens have an obligation to push more a just government, but even in the face of apathy Obama swore and oath to uphold it.
When he fails he can't blame us.
They're won't be any big protests on torture or healthcare, Obama knows it and we all know it.
Why not? If the right can have their Tea Parties, why don't we have protests about torture and healthcare? If indeed a majority of Americans are on the right (as in "correct") side of these issues, wouldn't we outnumber the Teabaggers?
What always amazes me about this kind of thing is the lack of self-preservation displayed by the "just move on" crowd.
It is not safe to live in a country in which the people in power can imprison and torture. If you really think you have a choice between health care and torture prosecutions (I disagree and see no reason whatsoever why you can't have both) ask yourself this: would you move to a country that tortures because it has health care?
If no one is prosecuted for torture, there is absolutely no reason for it not to happen again. A law doesn't exist if it is not enforced. And there is absolutely no reason to expect that next time, it won't happen to citizens -- look at what was already done to Jose Padilla.
Torture is the tool of a police state. You decide who your enemies are and then you make them admit to that, regardless of the reality. The fact that this time, it happened MOSTLY to captured non-citizens should reassure no one. All you need is a frightened population and a leader willing to exploit that, and you could find yourself in the same position.
Listen to the arguments of the torture defenders: "It was necessary, it was useful, it needs to be a tactic, people had died." Now tell me those why those arguments couldn't be applied just as easily to Americans.
If torture is tolerated in our society, other figures of authority may take the lesson to heart. Thus, if our government tortured terrorists and we look the other way, it will increase the likelihood that cops will use similar techniques on their suspects. This is a slippery-slope argument, something I normally dislike, but it is a real concern.
Agreed.
Everything that goes unchecked gets ramped up to the next level. Absolutely everything.
Let's be clear: One question here is whether torture can once again be established as outside the rule -- not just a policy choice between administrations. Bush broke the law. But if Obama doesn't take stronger action, he is going to share responsibility for leaving this issue as a simple matter of policy choice. In other words, if he continues to leave this door open, it's not simply that he hasn't accomplished a policy goal; he will be complicit when a future president makes the wrong choice wrong again.
On his greatness, let's be clear - he did very, very well, but he did not outperform congressional democrats. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2008/11/the-myth-of-poo.html
I hate the misread there, the idea that his skills alone blew out the map, because the more we view him as a singular figure bestowing gifts upon us, the more we limit the possibility of the moment and the change the American people began clamoring for even when they delivered Congress in '06, long before "change" became his slogan. As much as the congressional dems, and particularly a few key senate dems, have a tendency to make things difficult, let's not lose sight of the fact that this president has backing from the people and the co-equal branch that no other in my lifetime has come close to enjoying. He finally enjoys a Democratic congress free of Dixiecrats. The expectations are rightly high - and he doesn't have to do all the lifting himself. As TNC seems to recognize, eventually, falling back to praising him by imagining that Hillary would have done worse is just not going to cut it.
I'll await the argument that the congressional democratic ticket outperformed him only by the grace of his coattails, though I really don't know what to say. I am a fan, and I also think it's important never to lose sight of the fact that his very election ensures him some not-small measure of historical greatness. But I don't think it helps to overstate what he has accomplished. The wave of change has been good for him; let's hope he continues to return the favor.
As for the economy he got stuck with - he does have my full sympathy on that!
Remember the poster TNC had a while back--picture of Obama saying in effect--people, I got this covered?
You all need to chill out about this. He released the memos, remember? He is helping put a spotlight on what happened, even though he is saying HE isn't going to be leading the charge. He doesn't have to--he just needs to promote transparency, and wait for the groundswell that will push things where they need to go. If he were leading the charge, the right could be discussing how political he is and shifting the spotlight off the miscarriage of justice that occurred on their watch.
He bargained for the memos. In return he leaned on Holder to give the perpetrators immunity.
It took DOJ throwing a (private) hissy fit to keep the blanket immunity suggested by Gibbs and Emmanuel from becoming reality.
It seems to me that if he really "had this covered" he'd be quietly facilitating a congressional investigation.
He doesn't have to--he just needs to promote transparency, and wait for the groundswell that will push things where they need to go
If this is the case, then the last thing we should do is "chill out about this"--where do you think this groundswell Obama is counting on will come from?
Sybil,
His words have left everything open to interpretation, so my take is that he put out the memos to judge whether there is a groundswell. Given that, we are all responsible for making sure this happens. Everyone who cares about this should call their Congresspeople and ask whether they plan to support torture prosecutions and the impeachment of Jay Bybee, now -- unbelievably -- a judge. It only takes a couple minutes and every phone call makes it a little more likely that the senator or representative will do the right thing.
The groundswell of opposition to Obama's decision not to immediately begin investigations/prosecute over torture surprised me, and made me reconsider my views on the issue.
In the end, with the economy in shambles and the country still knee deep in Iraq, and expanding its role in Af/Pak, now is not the time for such things. Any congressional-led investigation on this issue will degenerate into an awful witchhunt. Because that's what congress is, and that's what congress does.
Now is not the time. The administration needs to quietly continue to gather evidence, releasing its findings occasionally and bide its time. The nation, and the legislatures, need to gain some perspective. There are too many people around with too much political power at stake with the outcome of such investigations. I think in a few years, we will be able to start an investigation in a calm and coordinated manner.
A feeding frenzy/witch is not inevitable in the future, but it is now, and it will achieve absolutely NOTHING productive.
I disagree. The urge to not think about disturbing things is strong, and a few years will be enough time for people to argue that this is all in the past. For example, I still see Henry Kissinger wandering around. In fact, I remember hearing he was giving Bush and Cheney Iraq advice fairly frequently.
Do you really want Yoo and Bybee advising some future president about all the horrific things they can inflict on their enemies?
TNC,
Fair enough, but I think this argument skirts the issue a bit. I think there’s a danger in dismissing those emphasizing the need for caution and a cost/benefit analysis as either cynics or cowards. In reality, maybe we should ask more of this or any president. I’m not sure we can realistically expect more, though. And I don’t mean that from the cynical, he’s only a politician angle. I mean quite simply that we can’t always get what we want. That priorities need to be set. And while it’s absolutely a valid argument that investigations and possible prosecutions in this case should be placed in front of all other priorities, I think it’s foolish not to consider how such a decision may do serious harm to other priorities.
So I think you’re dismissing a fair question. Assuming this would cost us another couple decades of worsening health coverage, and in 2028, 60% of the American people are without health insurance, would it still be worth it? Insert any other major priority, and ask yourself honestly whether or not it would be worth it. Saying it is worth it is an absolutely fair response. But you can’t just say that you shouldn’t have to make the choice. Of course you shouldn’t! That doesn’t mean you don’t have to all the same.
You really think that's a fair question?
I do.
Right, of course you do.
But to the the actual point, the question is leading--it assumes any torture investigation, whether led by Holder or Congress or a presidential committee, will necessarily kill Health care. That can't prove that, and thus it can't be assumed.
A fair question is, "Do you believe it's worth risking health care over this?" It's surely true that a torture investigation will take up time on the agenda. But how much time, and whose time is key. If the AG does this, not Obama, then I think the chance of sacrificing health care is remote.
TNC,
Regardless of what you think of my question, you still seem to be brushing aside what you accept to be a fair one. "Do you believe it's worth risking health care over this?" You argue the question is fair, but that the scenario is improbable. From where I stand, it's not so much an answer to the question at hand. It seems, with respect, more like a self-serving diversion.
I think it's fair to ask people to consider the worst case scenario, and then ask them to consider something worse still. Mine is an illustration of a 'worse still' scenario. I'm concerned that people think the worst case is putting things off for a couple of years. I think that's profoundly short-sighted.
Again, I am shaky on where I stand on this, I absolutely agree with you in principle, but I wonder what the cost of all of this could be. I think it is a lot more than most proponents are allowing themselves to believe.
Of course, there are distinct costs to the alternative.
Nope. Not brushing aside. But we can't lump all the varied ways of pushing this issue into the same risk category? Any movement forward on this is a "risk." Do I want Obama, himself, publicly, daily, beating the drum for prosecution? I don't think I do. That's to high of a "risk" to health care, among other things. But I think the AG investigating it, as it looks like he might be inclined to do, is an acceptable risk.
And I agree, that if this is to go forward (and ideally, it would in some way) the way you describe is potentially the path of least peril. But I am far from confident that its risks are remotely benign.
It's worth considering that political risks run both ways. There are political costs to not taking your own moral code seriously, even if they're more subtle than the costs of taking a moral stand. I'm certainly going to find it more difficult to give Obama the benefit of a doubt on anything again. If the government is going to be so crudely cynical, I certainly don't want it any bigger.
This is the same short-sighted version of utilitarianism that leads to torture in the first place. I mean, if I threaten to smear this terrorist with pig's blood, maybe he'll tell me where the next roadside bomb is. I guess I value the lives of the soldiers that bomb would target more than I value the terrorist's feelings. But what happens when word gets out that I've been making threats like that? How's that going to effect the number of roadside bombs I see in the future?
What the "worst case scenario" never seems to consider is the utilitarian cost of being a utilitarian.
So I think you’re dismissing a fair question. Assuming this would cost us another couple decades of worsening health coverage, and in 2028, 60% of the American people are without health insurance, would it still be worth it
This is veering dangerously close to a "make the trains run on time" argument. TNC obviously spoke for himself, but stop and think a moment about what you're asking here--you're willing to accept a tyranny as long as it subsidizes your health care?
To be clear, I am not at all sure where I am falling on this. The more the week has gone on, the bolder and louder the defenses of the program have become, the more I am leaning towards a to hell with the consequences perspective.
But I think it is foolish for people to carry on as if this doesn't run the risk of sabotaging the entire platform approved for by the people in November. TNC seems to think that if Holder does it then Obama's major policy proposals are relatively safe, that it won't be paralyzing politically. I believe that's wishful thinking.
I could be wrong. I hope that I am. I know there SHOULD be investigations. I freely admit the symbolic (and possibly practical) costs of not pursuing investigations and inevitable prosecutions. I just think people pushing so hard for this should begin to consider a practical question: What are you willing to lose? I believe it will be worse than most of them are anticipating.
I know the implications and hazards of letting sleeping dogs lie. Do you know the hazards of waking them up? All I am saying is that we should know what we're getting into, or not.
"Witchhunt" is politicalspeak for :"investigation which targets my supporters"
Not all Congressional investigations are political disasters.
Yea, they impeached Clinton, they also impeached Nixon.
They happen all the time and are an essential part of their Constitutional oversight duties.
They can make recommendation to DOJ and give them the cover necessary to do their jobs and prosecute the felons that built our torture policy.
The fact that they are essentially holding the country hostage by obliquely threatening to derail healthcare makes it even worse.
Deleted. I understand what your trying to do. But you can't do it here.
Ok, I understand. I'd be territorial, too. Thanks anyway.
I've been on the fence about this issue for a long time now, but here you've finally convinced me. Thank you.
i think that while it is easy to get angry with obama for not out right stating, "let's prosecute" (it gets under my skin too), we have to remember the mainstream media in all this. obama has a genuine skill in making the majority of the news come out his way. he knows how to work it! so in some sense, i want him to take the media on like he knows how. while i want prosecutions, i also want the media to back the F- off and let the prosecutors do their job. this won't happen. we yearn for "transparency".
there is a terribly strange space between transparency of information and what the hell the media (mainstream, mostly) will do with that information. you can't predict. i never imagined that the defense of torture that is coming out of certain mouths would ever occur (sure, call me naive). scary. so in that sense, i see why he'd hold his tongue.
I'm happy to press Obama on this issue, but let's not limit it to that. I'm happy to press Senators and Congressmen, too. And anybody else whose ear I can bend.
Yes, keep pressing.
It's not the greatest analogy, but it's like asking the investigations into ex-Nazis to stop because Konrad Adenauer is the new chancellor of Germany.
On the other side, there's South Africa, but that was a different situation in a much less stable nation.
He's simply WRONG on torture. He's just wrong, and it goes against any resemblance of a sense of JUSTICE - that's why people are so upset.
Hell yeah, I'm upset at the shredding of The Constitution, and I want those mofos arrested and tried.