Mr. Obama condemned what he called a "dark and painful chapter in our history" and said that the interrogation techniques would never be used again. But he also repeated his opposition to a lengthy inquiry into the program, saying that "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."I think this is wrong. More than that I think it's dismissive, silly and bordering on insult to any literate human being. In point of fact "spending our time and energy laying blame for the past" is exactly what the justice system does. By Obama's logic murderers would go free in the streets. The real question is not whether you're going to lay blame for the past, but who your going to lay it on, and for which past. What Obama is really saying in this statement is he won't hold this particular group accountable, for this particular past.
This is a dangerous course because it doesn't simply not "lay blame for the past," it shrugs off arguably the solemn responsibility of safeguarding the future. The price of doing nothing, of not enforcing laws, is the implicit statement that it really is OK to torture, that the most you'll face is a wag of the finger. The concern isn't mere vengeance.
All of that said, what really disturbs me about all of this, is that most Americans still don't think torture is a big deal. I think in the case of Bush, particularly after 2004, we--the American people--got the government we deserved. I think Bush said a lot about who we were post-9/11. I'd like to see some exploration into how to make this torture argument directly to the people. Maybe we can't. Maybe people really don't care that much. But if we're wondering why Obama isn't willing to press forward, I think it's fair to also wonder why the people aren't pressing him to press forward.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Word
fe real
seen?
We can. Pretty easily. Just pull someone out of a studio audience. Take a copy of the memo and perform every single one of those "not torture" techniques in prime time on television.
We are visual people. Pull Joe Scarborough out and smash his head against the wall not more than 30 times and I think people get a little better understanding of what torture is.
I agree with you. Obama's stance is BS but with all else he's got on his plate I can almost understand it. Almost. But releasing the memos was a good step even if his hand was somewhat forced.
I want to know WHY Obama is taking this position. The explanation of time, energy and blame, ably countered by you, is a counter he certainly has considered as well. I'm struggling with my belief in Obama's judgment vis-a-vis what his actions indicate. This is no different from 8 years of Bush supporters saying the same thing and that makes me a little sick.
This is only a guess, but there's the possibility that the intelligence community has pushed back hard on him. I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt on the part where he says that there won't be prosecutions of those who acted in good faith that what they were doing wasn't illegal, though I'd be happier if those people who showed such bad judgment were also kicked out of the service. But this goes beyond that limited proposition. The higher-ups who ordered and justified this behavior need to at least feel the pressure of a prosecution, no matter what comes out of it at the end.
Good faith? Everyone involved acted in "good faith." These are CIA and military officers, they are supposed to know what is legal and illegal. Laws against torture are not being constructed post facto, the laws decrying these specific practices were already in place (see. Army Field Manual, Geneva Conventions). I am deeply disturbed and disgusted by Obama's behavior on this issue. I knew that he would disappoint (all elected officials do) but on this the most important moral issue of his presidency there are no excuses. If he is merely letting the public "push" him to do something, than that is cowardly. Regardless of the politics of it, either torture is a crime therefore punishable by law or it is not. A public opinion poll should not have to determine that for you.
Obviously torture is a crime punishable by law. But the fact that it is punishable, does not mean offenders will always be punished. I'm actually astonished by people who are shocked or even disappointed that no prosecutions are going to be pushed by the Executive Branch. Honestly, do consider the political implications, logistical nightmares, and policy sacrifices any administration would have to face if they chose to proceed with an investigation that would surely end with the indictment of senior members of the previous administration.
Think about these things, and then do a cost/benefit analysis of what would inevitably be one of the most divisive decisions (regardless of it's legal, ethical, or moral merits) of any administration in the history of the United States. Ask yourself whether you'd be willing to give up on everything you wanted to get accomplished for this.
Because make no mistake, that's the decision.
Here's the thing, sansouci. It's easy to say that CIA and military officers are supposed to know what's legal and illegal, but it's not that simple. If you're not an expert, you rely on the opinions of experts, and if those experts tell you that it's okay, and more importantly, necessary, then you're going to be likely to defer. We can argue all day whether or not a person in that position should defer--I don't think they should, which is why I think that the people who did, who used that as an excuse to torture, ought to never be put in a position of authority again--but it's a rare person who will actually buck the expert opinion.
So I have a hard time disagreeing with Obama on the very limited position that we shouldn't prosecute people who were told that what they were doing was legal at the time. There should be some consequences, but sending a person to jail for that shouldn't be one of them. Not everyone is going to agree on this, though, and I can certainly understand why.
Generally speaking, I think it's pretty clear why he's doing this: he sees very few gains politically coming from what would be a long period of divisive prosecution that would inevitably involve and implicate senior members of the previous administration, forcing more prosecutions and further dividing the populous. The inevitable outcome of such prosecutions would be pardons or acquittal. The Justice Department is not going to prosecute people for following the orders of the Justice Department.
The only people who would make such a prosecution divisive would be what remains of the Republican Party (Limbaugh, Newt, Fox "News," and the ignorant people who are persuaded by them to vote AGAINST their best interests--not to mention those who view the Holocaust as erotica). But the torture memos are as bad for this nation as the "secret" transcript of the Wannsee Conference of 1942 (which outlined the day-to-day operations of the Holocaust) were for Germany.
In some respects, the Germans of 1945 were luckier than Americans after the 2008 elections. By national ruin and foreign occupation, even the most die-hard Nazis knew they had lost the war and that their ideology was bankrupt. Some fled to other nations, others suicided, and the higher-ups remaining were tried in war crimes tribunals, setting a precedent for years to come.
I should add that the rank-and-file SS people who actually operated the camps largely missed out on prosecution--much like the CIA agents who tortured or supervised torture seem to be getting a pass here. And for much the same reason--limited resources.
Contrast this with what happened to Germany at the end of World War I (the nation intact, but the economy in tatters)--and what is happening in America now. Nothing was physically ruined. The means of production are still able to be started up. No cities were bombed to the ground. But as a result, the right- and left-wing political groups in Germany--and the GOP die-hards here--don't realize that they have lost (either a war or a legitimate election). The GOP die-hards CANNOT be counted on to work together with the Democrats to rebuild a nation neglected by 30 years of crackpot ideology, economics, and a war started on lies and waged by choice.
We have to invest the time, effort, and (yes!) treasure to investigate the higher-ups who wrote these memoranda--and those who ordered them to do it--in order to avoid having this loathsome practice repeated if the current, crackpot remnants of the GOP ever return to power and decide to abrogate the Constitution again. People must remember our history--and the history of the country BushCheney seemed to be copying--Nazi Germany.
Really? The only people? Is that you sizing me up? I do make that argument. I do believe that a prosecution would be damaging and unsuccessful. If I thought it would be one but not the other, then I might lean more toward it making sense. If I thought this would end with successful prosecutions, maybe I would think it would be worth the catastrophic political losses. But I don't think federal employees are going to be convicted by a federal court for exercising authority they believed to be granted to them by the federal government. Furthermore, when you put it that way, I don't think they should. I honestly don't know how the Justice Department tries people for carrying out what was--at the time--Justice Department policy. It seems like the height of hypocrisy.
Even if we could get around that, you have to accept that without the majority of the people behind prosecution, any prosecution will be viewed as political by a lot of Americans. Prosecution would take years, countless millions of dollars and man hours, and would distract government from anything other than prosecution. Republicans (and Democrats from conservative states) would torpedo legislation, nothing would ever get accomplished, and the Justice Department would have to eventually settle for obstruction convictions (if any convictions at all). 2010 would be a nightmare for congressional Democrats, and 2012 would undo the wins of 2006 as well as install a nationalist Republican president who would run on ending these 'political persecutions of the people who spent eight years keeping us safe.' (I'm assuming that's what they'd say).
I very well could be wrong. I'd like to believe that it was likely. I just don't think that it is.
Additionally, these memos do not reflect anything remotely as bad for us as the transcript of the Wannsee Conference did for the post-war Germans. For the reasons you describe (i.e. America is still in charge of itself) and for the even more obvious reality that as terrible as these infractions were, and I do believe they were terrible, they do not begin to compare to what the Nazis did in Germany (or the Japanese in China, for that matter), so your Nazi analogy, like most contemporary Nazi analogies, doesn't really hold water.
I think the reason(s) people are pressing him to move forward, including people who abhor torture, is/are because there's a host of other things to worry about. Since we can't untorture the detainees that were treated wrongly, the best we can do is to make sure not to pursue a policy of torture going forward. I think there's also concern about who would get swept up in any investigations. It's one thing to try John Yoo or some other high level official for twisting the law to allow repugnant actions and its another to try an interrogator doing his job within the guidelines provided to him. I realize that "just following orders" only goes so far, but that's really easy for me to say sitting in my office and having never been under fire. These reasons might be wrong and I can't decide I ultimately come out on this or things like "dead-checking", but they certainly are not unreasonable.
The Geneva Conventions explicitly state that "just following orders" is not a valid defense. We signed the treaty. The Constitution say treaties ratified by Congress are supreme. Legally Obama and more importantly Holder are obligated to prosecute, not to mention morally.
I am from Arkansas and there fore not as articulate as many of the posters to this thread. Since I was a kid in WWII I felt that the USA was a shining city on the hill. The Nazis and the Japs commited horrendous war crimes but not our boys. Further our elected officials were honest servants of the public good. I was at this time naïve enough to believe that we were a nation of equal justice under the law. That was then.
I have learned in the ensuing years of Emmet Till, the Keating Five, Congressman Rostenkowski, Teddy Kennedy , Nixon, Enron, Bush , Libby, Cheney , Madoff, Credit Default Swaps, and now the DOJ Memos on torture. It sickens me to realize that the political and economic elite are served from a different fountain of Justice. The rest of us get cool aid. For that reason alone the Law against torture should be applied to the authors of the memos, the executive branch chiefs that implemented the orders and those who applied the insects, water, and whips.
If this doesn’t happen then the Nuremberg trials are a farce and a pure example of the Victor’s vengeance.
President Obama has shown the political will to order the memos released now he must show the fortitude to see that charges are brought down and let the courts decide the guilt or innocence of those directly involved.
Properly applied the Law applies equally to the political elite as to the most humble citizen.
"Just following orders" goes about this far:
Article 2, part 3, UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:
"An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."
It is not a defense. You cannot avoid prosecuting for this reason. Perhaps you can ameliorate the penalties, but you cannot just dismiss the acts.
I hope - I don't expect, but I hope - that Obama is doing this because any prosecution for war crimes is going to be a punishing political fight and he's saving it for the higher-ups (Read: Addington, Yoo, Cheney, etc).
I think you’re basically pretty right on with all counts. This notion that we need not look back, recognize crimes, and assign blame is absurd. But really, is there a groundswell of folks who want to be tangled in this muck for the next several years? So what is to be gained from prosecution?
I mean, honestly, I understand what moral good could come from prosecuting those who did this, I’m just not sure we can expect the outcome to be what we’d truly want it to be. In the end, I believe we were all largely complicit in these crimes. Some of us more than others, to be sure, but all of us bare the stains of this period. Prosecution of the perpetrators of these acts will not absolve us. There’s no catharsis to be had, especially when so many Americans reject any recognition of the need for one.
Whether there is a "groundswell of Folks who want to be entangled" or not is irrelevant, laws are to be acted upon at the whim of the people or the whim of leadership is antithetical to the point of having laws. What is gained is the proof of the truth of this country's principles as enacted through the enforcement of laws. What is gained is the return of respect from the family of nations through the adherence to international laws this country helped create. What is gained is the national unity Obama professes to desire through the display of the fact of, whether a poor meth making rural resident or the torture approving son of a former president, no one is above the law. A sense of common responsibility and equal obligation, protection and treatment under law makes people feel like this is one nation. And finally I find these practices abhorrent, beyond repulsive, the thought of a defenseless person, beaten, humiliated, starved with no defense no access to support, no recourse enrages me regardless of the circumstances. However what sickens me even more is my responsibility for that because IT WAS DONE IN MY NAME BY THOSE WHOSE JOB IS TOO REPRESENT ME! So finally what is to be gained? The majority of this country will be able to clear it's name and reclaim a little bit more of its soul back.
I honestly understand the virtues of your argument. I don't question whether these actions were right or wrong, torture or not. I'm not ambivalent. I think this was clearly wrong, and believe many of the actions carried out in my name constitute torture. More than that, I believe the invasion of Iraq to have been nothing short of criminal. My only point is that a prosecution is implausible and therefore pointless. What we can do is what the president is doing: say what was done, condemn it, and be done with it. You can try to do more, but you will not succeed. You will fail. And your failure will be catastrophic. A noble defeat, maybe. But a defeat, nonetheless.
Two points. First I believe the biggest mistake at the federal level of the past 40 years was the pardoning of Nixon. If Nixon had to confront criminal prosecution than trust me future presidents would think twice before engaging in criminal activity. Prison is not a deterrent for street level criminals, white collar workers are deeply intimidated by jail. Second point even if one fails in the attempt to prosecute these crimes, you paint your political opponents as pro-torture or rather they become pro-torture by definition. Obama's attempts at "bi=partisanship" failed because of Republican obstinence. However in the wash the Republicans looked like asses and Obama gained points for his failed but noble attempt. A noble failure sometimes is more successful than a weaselly success.
Correction "laws are NOT to be acted on at the whim of the people or the whim of leadership".
Your intended meaning was clear.
Two counter-points: I’m a bit dubious of this notion that fear of prosecution, while totally ineffective with street-level criminals is the silver bullet when it comes to the rich and powerful who would otherwise be totally corrupt. I’m further skeptical that a Nixon prosecution (successful or otherwise) would have accomplished much of anything. It’s a nice landmark, I suppose. It’s helpful to have something to hang your hat on; this idea that everything can be brought back to a single error in judgment, that had the single moment in history been handled differently, everything would be better. I just don’t think it’s an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
The other point: I think your analogy of Obama’s early attempts at compromise with an obstinate Republican minority isn't really apt to the situation at hand. Regardless of whether we say he's succeeding or failing with his attempts at bipartisanship (I lean more towards the former), what's inarguable is that any failure he's faced thus far has been an absolutely inconsequential one. By contrast, the failure I’m talking about is a cataclysmic one that derails every policy goal of his administration. And for each of those things he fails to accomplish or even address in his four years in office, all he will have to show for it is an obscenely expensive, divisive, and FAILED prosecution.
So yeah, I think a cost/benefit analysis may be in order. You might be willing to give up everything for the opportunity to one day say that you fought this losing battle. I just don't think that's a good idea.
BreakerBaker:
The problem with this idea of cost/benefit is that you open the door for future administrations (as well as the current one) to make laws and judgments that contravene international agreements or even US civil codes and, when those creations lead to abuses, then say "Well, it's too much trouble to prosecute!" I think that's ridiculous. If you extended this to other aspects of law and justice, we'd start assessing more crimes by the amount of trouble it would take to prosecute them, and what we would get out of them. Saying that it is not politically expedient to follow agreements and legal precedents just allows government an enormous amount of power.
eruditeogre:
I absolutely understand (and to a degree, agree with) your perception of what I am saying: that it essentially amounts to an unprincipled strain of logic, one that, as you say, risks opening the doors to a possible flood of indiscretion. That being said, I’m not sure those doors aren’t already open. And for that matter, off the hinges. When I argue for a cost/benefit analysis, I am not simply warning about political costs, I’m honestly wondering how we as a country will literally benefit.
Personally, I’m not moved by this notion that we need to regain our soul, nor am I anywhere near certain that prosecutions of these crimes (by the federal government) could be successful. In fact, I think it’s highly unlikely that the federal government could get a conviction higher than, say, obstruction of justice, if that. Further, what does it accomplish for the federal government to try people for crimes that were authorized by the federal government? Theoretically, and I assume this is the meat of the prosecutions most people are demanding, the government could go after the very officials who authorized torture in the first place, so you end up with a trying whom exactly? Cheney? Ashcroft? Gonzales? Tenet? Rice? Rumsfeld? Rove? Members of Congress? Inevitably it ends with Bush, right? (Riiiiiight.) Good luck with the jury pool on that one.
You’re talking about an expensive, years long process that will end with a new president elected in 2012 who will have run on ending what he will call ‘political persecution of people who spent day and night heroically thinking of ways to keep us all safe.’ And the investigations and prosecutions will end. And we’ll be worse off than we are now. So yeah, I see a lot of costs and virtually no quantifiable benefit.
Take several thousand dollars and make a true-to-life depiction of the "prototypical interrogation" described in one of the memos; take several thousand additional dollars and produce DVDs w/ the memo in the liner notes. Buy time to show it on cable if possible. If people actually watched it, they'd get it. The fact that people think that what Jack Bauer does is more or less what we did is the problem.
Olbermann had a great piece about Obama's refusal to prosecute the Bush administration last night:
http://gotchamedia.blogspot.com/2009/04/olbermann-president-obama-you-are-wrong.html
Well, this won't be the first time outrages have occurred with the sanction of the US government, and perhaps this is an issue for the World Court to adjudicate, though it would be cleaner if we took care of our own business in front of the world.
There is also, as many commenters have descried, the precedent that must be established that such institutionalized disreard for basic human rights that go to the heart of our finest legal traditions and culture will not be tolerated. On this, I would hope true conservatives would make their voice heard, and here one must give Andrew Sullivan his due props--if there are any other true conservatives out there.
Beyond that, I don't see how we can have made criminals of low level military on these issues while the ones who enabled and institutionalized these practices get off. I like President Obama, but as with those before him, privileging an elect class, whether it be the banking industry or high level government officials implementing criminal interrogation methods that break American and international law, not to mention Constitutionally guaranteed treaties, at the expense of our rank and file citizenry goes profoundly against every good impulse that led to our current President's election, and he needs to be held accountable.
The real question is not whether you're going to lay blame for the past, but who you're going to lay it on...
This is a key point. What Obama is trying to avoid is another Abu Ghraib situation, where the lowest-ranking soldiers were prosecuted in a court that pretended they all sat around and thought that shit up themselves, and then gave themselves carte-blanche to do it. From today's issue of The Recorder, a legal newspaper in California:
Obama doesn't want an open court naming names of CIA personnel (it would be Valerie Plame: The Sequel) -- but an international criminal court indictment of Bybee or Cheney? He's made it very clear that those bastards are on their own.
(I also think, FWIW, that Obama is not going to give cover to the medical doctors and psychologists involved either.)
That would require that those men show themselves before the ICC - and they're not going to. Not only that, but this cripples any future accession of the US to the ICC, as that would entail the trial of these men.
Good point about the ICC...but an indictment by them or any other international court basically keeps these guys within the borders of the USA for the rest of their natural-born lives, or they risk being Pinochet'd.
And there's nothing to stop them facing criminal trial or civil trial in a U.S. court. I think, practically speaking, we (meaning the country as a whole) have neither the time, money, or inclination to prosecute, say, 100 low-level military and CIA personnel. But 6-10 former Bush lackeys, including the Vice President? That, only time will tell.
And speaking of time.... Obama always plays the long game and his political acumen is unparalleled. (Do you really think it was an accident that these memos, after being "reviewed and discussed" for months, get released exactly 24 hours after the Tea Parties, effectively suffocating their media coverage and changing the meme of the airwaves from "Obama is bad" back to "Bush is evil"?)
People are reacting to Obama the same way they did during the election: "Do something now! Respond now!" And Obama's doing what he did: Chill the fuck out, I got this.
This is one where I hope everyone is writing a comment to whitehouse.gov or placing a call. Except bonneville, who is going to do his part by smashing Joe Scarborough's face against a wall.
The thing that gets me is that even when I think Obama is compromising, his rhetoric is almost always smart and reasoned. But as TNC says, this is just silly.
Patience people, I think Obama has a plan, and it's better than the Cylons. And remember two points, He only promised not to go after people who operated under 'good faith' and left the door wide open on prosecution of the people who were behind the insanity and Evil.
The other problem is that people simply can't wrap their mind around the idea that everything America does isn't good. And admitting that something We as Americans permitted to happen was actually Evil means that, in our patriotism, we accept the good, so now we have to accept we let America perform Evil on our watch. And most people will fight and deny the reality of what we did in order to hold on to their worldview that America is best Country and can do no Evil.
It may get swept under the rug because honestly, most people don't want to deal with the implications of what We did.
There was an excellent article in Esquire written by Tom Junod about how we as Americans abdicated our responsibilities in this mess. Yeah. We did it or rather we did nothing to stop it. As I commented above, I'm having a hard time reconciling why Obama is taking this path. All responses to my query I've considered. Passing it off to a diabolical Cylon long game sits uneasily in my gut about this but on the other hand, I'm no political chess master. Obama said plainly that there would be things he did that I would not agree with during his tenure. This is one of them because there is nothing I'd like more than to see that cabal wide-eyed and sweating in front of a microphone and congress. Plus, I REALLY don't like having any intersect with supporters of Bush. But based on Judod's premise, I should be in front of congress as well because I did nothing.
I'm sorry. I'm rambling.
This is another case where I'm going to take a bit of a wait and see approach. The argument I've heard that Obama is releasing the torture memos in an effort to create a groundswell of public opinion makes some sense. If enough people get angry about it, this could "force his hand" and lead to actual prosecutions. That way the right people get punished and Obama isn't beaten up for partisan politics. However, if he ultimately does nothing, then much of this is on his head. You can't just ignore torture.
One question: if these men are not going to be prosecuted, then why the hell did Lynndie England go to jail? Pretty much everything she did was allowed under the rationale offered in these memos.
Hell, how in god's name will the US be able to prosecute anyone using these techniques against US citizens in future?
Simple: She was dumb enough to allow herself to be photographed.
I know that's glib. But, really, that's the only reason she was prosecuted. Without the photographs, there would've been no need for damage control (which is really what those prosecutions amounted to).
Actually, I was mistaken, England got out in 2007, only the 'ring leader', Charles Graner, is still in prison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbuGhraibScandalGraner55.jpg
Oddly enough at Graner's trial the prosecution countered Graner's contention that he was only following orders by saying that even if he had received such orders, he should have known that they were illegal. Guess they got that bit wrong, eh?
The fact that these people went to jail, but others who can conclusively be shown to have done exactly the same things will not be prosecuted, is an extreme injustice. Your quite right to say that the only difference is that England, Graner, et al's only mistake was to take pictures.
TNC,
I agree with you 95%
But I think you get this backwards: "But if we're wondering why Obama isn't willing to press forward, I think it's fair to also wonder why the people aren't pressing him to press forward"
I think Obama doesn't press forward because doing so will most likely bring him trouble with the people. It is that sad.
I must concur with Eduardo. The truth is, Obama would spend a hefty chunk of political capital prosecuting the war criminals who authorized this and in terms of the torturers themselves, the rank and file folk (who in my opinion ought not be tapped unless their bosses were first taken down), well, he'd destroy the CIA -- it would implode under the fire power of frantically pointed fingers. I bet the intelligence community has already made this case to him rather forcefully. And, terrible as it is to conscience, this administration, in these times really does need the intelligence community more than most. Too much to set it on fire for a cause. The lives ruined in this mess cannot now be un-ruined. Seeking to root out and hold the perpetrators accountable, is, I think, right, but the collateral damage might outweigh the moral win of the righteous purge.
Meanwhile, in the midst of the chaos created by launching a series of criminal investigations at the highest levels (starting lower would be bogus in so many ways) the economy would still be tanking and the massive, mostly progressive agenda Obama sponsors would be waiting in the wings. And waiting. And waiting. The Congress would be in upheaval, everybody trying shout down enemies or cover their own ass.
The news media would follow the investigations obsessively, including the enormous monetary cost, and all this might be successfully weathered, except that Americans don't really get that high up on their outrage horse about torture (majorities believe we shouldn't engage in it, but it is, surprisingly, not a fire-in-the-belly issue for even those who do not condone it) it would be a net loss -- not only for Obama, but for the country, at least in terms of the ability to move policy through about other matters that are of more immediate concern and touch most people's lives (i.e. Health Care, Education).
It's a terrible dilemma, because on the moral points I cannot argue with TNC and others who've commented in full-voiced agreement, but as a matter of governance, I actually understand the Obama decision, which, true to form, is a compromise.
I do not, however, understand why Obama's justice department is actively denying habeas corpus rights to detainees at Bagram prison in Afghanistan. That decision is as morally deleterious and has no logic concerning the greater good that I can fathom.
I know people may start yelling that morality is not relative and cannot be traded for any kind of logic lest we enter a slippery slope. So let me preemptively say, yeah, I know. But governance and moral theory don't always go hand in hand and what one might willingly sacrifice for ones own moral code -- material mobility, order, protection, even life itself -- deserves a second look when the fate of a nation is concerned. That does not mean such a second look always should or does result in moral compromise. It manifestly does not, but when it does, if we make the cost know to ourselves and history, as is the case with these explicit torture memos, perhaps it is an opportunity to learn from mistakes? Perhaps not. I guess it depends on whether one believes that the only kind of accountability is putative accountability (that is, we only do the right thing in the future because we've been punished for doing the wrong thing in the past).
This is an ambiguous argument suited for a world full of grey scales and made by a person who does not have a purist moral philosophy. I despise torture mostly because it doesn't work and it doesn't work in a spectacularly explosively fashion. All parties and the systems/structures/nations they are implicated in are eventually destroyed by the acts because they are so repugnant to any minimally socialized human being (just read Fanon's Wretched of the Earth). However, this rejection of the method is not the same as a pure, visceral aversion creates a space for a grudging, uncomfortable acceptance of this particular Presidential prerogative.
I think President Obama's decision is predicated on the notion that, given the tenor of our political discourse these days, such an inquiry would grind the gears of government to a halt at an extremely bad time. That said, even if his conjecture is correct, this decision is dead wrong. Some things are too important to ignor, and government-sanctioned torture is one of them.
Granted. But I think bringing charges without getting a conviction is more than useless---it pretty much legitimizes the torture.
We (and Obama) need convictions. And, like it or not, that depends on the political winds, and on overwhelming public outrage. Absent that, you're going to have, at best, a hung jury. And that means no conviction.
The solution is to change the political winds and generate that outrage. Don't go looking for top down solutions---this one needs a grassroots push.
I would have been deeply disappointed if Obama hadn't released the memos. However, while I feel like I should turn in my liberal card for admitting this, I'm very ambivalent on the issue of prosecutions for the CIA. For one thing, it would have smothered Obama's presidency in the crib. Like it or not, there is just no widespread outrage from the American people demanding accountability. That is a sad fact of our collective morality and a failure of our democracy, but it's true ... just as we got the government we deserved in 2004, we get the justice we deserve now, too.
I have to agree with Nina. And I know it will certainly put me in the minority view on this subject, for which I intend no disrespect. But I just don't think prosecution is possible, politically speaking.
It would destroy his relationship with the CIA. And he'd end up being painted as the one who was un-American, instead of the torturers.
Cheney's private army and shadow government already strained relations with the intelligence community. They've got to be really demoralized at this point. Then to be prosecuted for, basically, following the orders of the president? It'd be the last straw.
Another problem, which I heard raised on NPR, is where would the prosecutions end? Since most members of Congress were secretly briefed on interrogation methods, wouldn't they be liable as well? And you know it had to go all the way to Cheney, probably Bush as well.
My opinion: It's a Pandora's box that he can't afford to open.
Especially without a strong sense of outrage and desire for prosecution on the part of the American public, which so far at least, is just not happening.
From an international perspective, the release of the memos was an extraordinary step. While I understand the arguments of all of you, I think you have also reason to be proud if you voted for Obama.
Obama doesn't want to make the mistakes of having his popularity swallowed by Bush's War on Terror.I was against the war of "liberaton" in Iraq, and the whole "War of Terror" bs.
Obama have to find a way of having the higher ups in Bush' Cabal judged and condemned, but not the CIA operatives. Abu Graib was a farce where the lower rung of the military was thrown under the bus to allow the guitly party to go scot free.
It's a sad situation, but everyone is guilty of the torture mess: Government, Media, and a silent public.
The listening tour is coming to San Antonio next week. It is basically the vestige of the Obama campaign to talk about what we are going to do in the interim. I was a precinct captain and volunteer down here. And so I called the organizers last week and said if the memos were not released, then I would not be there. The release has me back on board.
I am not sure what happens next. Right now I am still in a daze from having taken ninety minutes to read these last night, and I feel like I have just been gut-punched.
I remember sitting in history class and wondering what it was like to be a German circa 1948 as the full extent of the horrors of the previous decade or so came to light. And I remember sitting through American history and wondering how people could possibly own slaves, how we could have interred the Japanese Americans during WWII, and so on, and thinking, at least we have grown past that. I feel like I can relate a little more now, and that makes me sick.
Now my prayer is that in a few years when my children are in their high school history classes, they will wonder how on earth anyone ever allowed this to happen.
I'm disappointed I totally get why Obama had to do it this way. That said, I think it would go a long way to allow victims of torture to sue the leaders of the previous administration in civil courts. Even it we can't put them in Jail, we can ruin them.
I'm conflicted on this, especially at first cut -- I want justice done, and, to be very frank, I would have a very hard time serving on any jury surrounding these cases.
But there's another point to remember -- On this, if anything, Obama must be understood before being critiqued. He's a constitutional lawyer by training. Of course he wouldn't be president if he were the best in that business... but he has spent a significant portion of his life thinking about this stuff. If there's any place where he deserves some (brief) suspension of disbelief on our part, it is here.
Politically, of course, this approach has some arguments for it -- Obama will, I suspect, be in the position of refereeing between Holder, DOJ, and the CIA: and he's best off establishing himself as an honest broker.
At a larger level, he may be leaving unsaid (but also uncontradicted) a valid point, which is that his job here is to ensure (and rebuild) the independence of the judiciary. And dissociating himself from a personal interest in the progress of certain cases... is a particularly important step in rebuilding that independence.
Sigh. Sometimes, I wonder why I comment. I'm gonna get hammered by the room. But whatever. Count me in the number of "the people" who doesn't think he should prosecute. It's not because I agree with torture, or think it's right. It's not because I don't think the "torturers" knew they were wrong or that even if they didn't, that that's really an excuse. Torture is wrong.
I don't think he should prosecute because it's just not worth the fight. Not that I dont think he could win it, but I just dont personally think it's worth the cost. I don't.
When I grew up a lot of dudes lived by the motto "never ran never will." Never under any circumstances back down no matter the severity of the infraction. And I get that. But I also get that most of those dudes never made it very far, and in fact many are longer around. I believe firmly in picking my battles. I believe that for those things that I do decide to fight for, to be relentless. But for everything else, to not sweat it. Maybe torture is your "line in the sand" if you will. So important that you're willing to fight this fight, whatever the cost. For me it's just not. When I look at the upside vs. downside I see on the upside that the people who did this will pay. That's about it. Those who were tortured already have been. In terms of putting people on trial being some kind of deterrant, it may be, but probably not by much. Times like the period we went through after 9-11 are less frequent than our memories. Some day we probably will see a time like that again, but there will be a whole new crop of 20 year olds around then who don't remember anything about this, and if there is a monster like George Bush in office at the time willing to go through the mental gymnastics required to say this is all right, I'm not confident that prosecuting now will have much of an impact on wheter this happens again. On the downside there is a real chance that prosecuting here could seriously derail any shot at doing some of the things that I think are vitally important right now. I think millions of people world wide could be impacted by climate change, and that we have a real chance to alter that. I think thousands of people in the US could have their lives altered by a successful reform of the prison system. I'm not really a fan of "universal" health care, but I do think that there are thousands of amercians in desperate need of health care reform. Those are a couple of things, I also care a lot about transit, agriculture reform and food safety, the potential to really help some of these dying former steel and manufacturing towns with the development of a green economy. Heck I'd like to see a reform of DOMA and repeal DADT. alot of things where I think Obama could be transformative. On this at best I see vindication, but little transformation. So for me it's just not worth it. It's not that I don't care about torture per se, but frankly I don't know anybody who's been tortured. or know anybody who knows anybody who been tortured. And so on.
If he can win this fight and not sacrifice all or even most of these other things that he actually campaigned on, that motivated me to vote for him, then great, I'm all for it. But for me it's just not worth sacrificing those other things for this. And if I am in the minority and people really do see pursuing torture convictions as paramount, I really don't see why more Kucinich didnt get more votes. Hed've come through for you no matter the cost, im sure.
No hammering here. I concur.
I concur as well. And allow me to completely dumb down this discussion by asking, did you ever see the skit on Chapelle Show, "When Keeping it Real Goes Wrong"?
Sorry but your opening comments brought that to mind. LOL
The normal course that a soldier (or CIA operative) can take is to state that he believes an order is illegal and thus is refusing to obey it.
These memos from OLC pretty much closed that off. Obeying orders is deeply ingrained in these soldiers, and we want it to stay that way. Soldiers that don't obey orders take over the government pretty quickly. Or engage in very wanton behavior.
This to me is the truly horrifying consequence of legalizing torture. Now any soldier given an order to waterboard or sleep deprive someone, or bash his head against the wall no more than 20 times is faced with prosecution, imprisonment, fines, loss of job and status, and no hope of relief until the next administration, which looked like five or six years.
No, I don't want to prosecute them, either. John Yoo, David Addington, Dick Cheney. Maybe others. Those are the guys I want prosecuted. By the World Court if necessary.
Responded in the wrong place... Don't forget Bybee, a Federal Appeals court judge.... 'Visualize impeachment.'
From Sully's blog, and Obama's speech:
"The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again."
Frankly... I'm hearing this as the most significant -- and pitch-perfect -- element of Obama's response. What Obama might happen to want, he is saying, is less important than what the law demands. The law demanded that he release those memos. And, crucially... the law may demand that he administer/execute the decisions of a court.
Part of the reason for the stains on our conscience is that we as a nation allowed ourselves to confuse vengeance with justice. By nature, it will be difficult to tell whether Obama is deliberately working to disentangle the two in his response.
Yes, it sounds like there's a fellow who's due for impeachment (Bybee)... and, frankly, it's not too much for us to ask that our representatives walk and chew gum on this issue.
I was reading about this on Hullaballoo and what I got from this was two things.
1) That this is Obama's position.
2) That if we, the Amercan people, do not agree with this position then we as the electorate can and should fight him thereby making Obama adhere to the will of the people.
It's easy to say that we don't agree with him but then we have to step up and come correct about it. If we aren't willing to act on this then are we any better than Obama?
If there is a petition I'll sign.
I remember the arguements that I had with my fellow ski bums (a different chapter in my life) during the run-up to the Iraq war. They tenaciously held to all the transparent mistruths used to justify the war. It reminded me of how tenuous a thing like democracy really is. Like the Hermann Goering quote:
Similar logic applies to torture, in my mind.
Perhaps a clearer response: it's vitally important to take into account Obama's institutional role here (which he, frankly, knows very well).
Specifically... metaphorically, or perhaps even literally, Obama is the cop in this situation _not the judge_. Officially, the cop's job is find the evidence, avoid the temptation to frack with it, and make sure the _accused_ gets before the judge _in a state where he can be tried_. Unofficially -- and here's where policing wanders into the wilderness -- his other job is to ensure that good evidence continues to flow, which means cultivating informants, and not making too much of a stink on the street.
The question for us is not 'is he right' but rather 'is he playing his role well?' Hard to tell, although I will note that a lot of our police might do well to watch and learn.
The other point that we cannot forget... ever. The President is neither judge nor jury, nor really executioner. And thank god for that.
I write condemning pieces about torture and the torturers on my blog. I also hold Obama's feet to (illusory) fire.
No-one reads any of it, I don't think.
Protest? If someone organized one I'd go, but I certainly don't have the time or abilities to coordinate one myself.
Do you demand more of me? I tell everyone who I think who will listen about America's torture.
I'm writing a movie that will present Nazi torture in strikingly similar terms to American torture (as has been pointed out by Andrew Sullivan, among others).
Beyond that, is there something I should do? I'm a poor guy in my 20's. What should I do?
Write a letter to your representative
Write letters to your senators
Write a letter to our president
Blog
Now crack a brew and drink it knowing you've done your part.
Try reading another blog. Deleted.
It seems pretty simple to me: the people tortured are brown, so torture doesn't matter.
Dudes.
I've posted answers on threads on Balloon Juice, FDL, and Obsidian Wings. I'm posting here.
I've sent an email to Greenwald, Sullivan, and ThinkProgress. And I'm saying here again.
We need - all of us who are angry and upset about the torture memos, the Cheney torture regime, and Obama's refusal to prosecute - to form our own protest!
Let's do this! If FOX Not-News can foment and blather enough to get 250,000 people to protest taxes that might not ever exist, why can't we get 2 million people to protest a torture policy that DID exist and DESERVES to be prosecuted?
I am offering to pay the 50 bucks for the park permits for the National Mall in DC. Let's set a date, and LET'S DO THIS THING.
Let's host a protest! C'mon people! Work with me here!
Have you thought about forming a FB group and circulating a petition?
I've signed petitions already. WE NEED TO GET OUT ON THE STREET.
Someone mentioned to me that there's a day June 26 that's International Day in Support of Torture Victims. It was started back in 1987. Let's use that as a rally point to get people in DC challenging Obama and the Justice Dept. to pursue the Bush torture advocates for their criminal misdeeds.
I'm in awe at the naivete of self-righteous bloggers and commenters who think that somehow America is different. How can any student of American history think we are not capable of absolute evil? Why do we think we are immune to corruption and exploitation when all the evidence suggests otherwise?
America has been different. I'm not saying that, in the main, or on average, throughout history, America has been less evil than any other place- but there are a lot of examples throughout American history, from the religious liberty we have maintained since before nationhood, to the civil war (which may not primarily have been about ending slavery, but which did end it), to the decent treatment we gave prisoners of war in WWII. There are lots of examples of opposite behavior- the Salem witch trials, Sacco and Vanzetti, slavery, Jim Crow, on and on. But we have shown, through our history, that we are CAPABLE of doing the right thing and offering justice to one another and to our enemies. So the important thing, to me, is that we CAN be different, that we can do better than this.
And looking at torture, if we can do better than this, I think we must. So I intend to pressure all I can to have the top people in the torture prosecuted, no just to render justice but because it says in those memos that the conclusions that that sick stuff was legal is shaky because it has never been adjudicated in a court. Our legal system works on precedent, and we need a good solid precedent really clarifying that this stuff is just dead illegal. I don't particularly care about prosecuting the people who carried out the torture. It the ones who authorized it, who ordered it, and who said that it was legal who need to be publicly punished for being wrong. Obama has changed our policy; an executive order only lasts as long as the executive's term, when it can be overturned. A court decision has a much longer life.
I usually don't make this kind of comment, but, is it possible that torturing dark-skinned people, Muslims at that, really doesn't rate too high on most Americans' outrage scale?
I believe The President is wrong. All of them should be prosecuted. I know it isn't practical, but that's what I believe. All of the Bush crooks should go to jail. What the good is it to have a Justice Department that won't go after those that broke the law.
Not exactly a protest, but: if it's any consolation, I called my congresswoman (Woolsey) today and urged that she take leadership in pushing for the impeachment of Jay Bybee (we are after all under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit). I had to spell the name out for her staffer (actually a pretty competent young woman). I emphasized the guilt of the 6 that Spain was looking at, and that Woolsey would probably also recognize the name John Yoo (I'm in NorCal, I don't always vote for my Congresswoman in the primary because, frankly, she's to the easy left of me on a lot of issues (she fits the district: environmentalist NIMBY counts as left, whereas I'm more interested in equality of opportunity; she to my mind errs on the side of pacifism (I'm with Obama in opposing stupid wars rather than all wars, but I'm not so sure he's coming at the Pashtun problem (Af/Pak border) intelligently), but she has some seniority on relevant committees so I pointed out that I thought it was something on which she could take a leadership role. Then the agenda gets advanced, her reflexively anti-war district is happy, and Obama gets to distance himself from the extremes of the reaction while actually getting the job done. Potential win-win. If you're in a similar district, consider making a call.)
I was thrilled on Thursday: it wasn't all I wanted, but it was the minimum I'd hoped for, and I got it. It was a big week: he hit a lot of constituencies.
And always remember that he's playing a long game.
So, come on, people, if you want action on this issue, press for it. I'd rather it came from us than from him, anyway: in some ways he needs to remain above the fray. And: media hit after media hit after media hit this week! Nice way to drown out the tea parties just in case they amounted to much. Which I don't think they did.
Keep calling Woolsey back. Get your friends to keep calling Woolsey. Don't make threats, don't go extremist or anything, just keep calling.
Anyone know which committee in the House would have any oversight on the matter that could push for impeachment proceedings on Bybee?
Also, I have to ask if any defense lawyer is going to be comfortable having a judge like Bybee presiding over cases, and if they are able to petition for changes in venue or to request he be recused on cases... I wonder if pressure could be made that way...
I agree with most of the arguments which do not support Obama's 'let by gones be gones', 'I was just taking orders', rationale for not allowing an investigation by DOJ on the whole torture nightmare.
I find the excuses that it's politically sensitive [therefore messy] or that the issue is one too many for Obama's plate, to be ludicrous, weak tea. It seems to me that any reasonable person would find the failure to even investigate the allegations of torture an abject failure of the rule of law and devoid of moral standing.
I just finished reading "Team of Rivals". Has anyone here read it? There is a creepy parallel in the way Obama is dealing with the torture issue and the way Lincoln wanted to deal with the Confederacy at the end of the war. The problem is that the two situations have nothing to do with the other.
It certainly has given me cause to pause.