TORTURE IS WRONG -- Why Don't They GET That!?

[filkertom]

redneckgaijin has a post I can't disagree with, on how incredibly wrong it is to take prosecuting members of the Bush Administration for war crimes off the table. It is my sincere hope that the American people, led by the blogosphere, can talk some sense into Obama on this one, because he and Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and anybody else saying we should not prosecute them are flat wrong.

I would Google for ten or fifteen seconds to find suitable evidence as to how screwed up BushCo was... but why work even that hard for it? Just this morning, former senior Pentagon and White House official and Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen gives us the bestest and most magical explanation of them all:

Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

[Emphasis mine.]

I cannot express how demented this sounds to me. Twisted. Sociopathic. Evil. Orwell himself might've turned that phrase.

These are the people that Obama cannot let get away.

ETA: In comments, markbernstein points us to this. Pretty frickin' much.

Comments

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

When the New York Daily News prints an article titled Why the Bush torture architects must be prosecuted: A counter-terror expert speaks out, it's time. The News isn't a right-wing rag like the New York Post, but it's slanted fairly conservative.

Prosecute the bastards. And impeach Bybee; a man who can not merely condone, but justify torture has no place on the bench.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

Perhaps we're being a little quick to judgement?

"And while Mr. Obama vowed not to prosecute C.I.A. officers for acting on legal advice, on Monday aides did not rule out legal sanctions for the Bush lawyers who developed the legal basis for the use of the techniques."
( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21intel.html?_r=2&hp )

I think there need to be prosecutions, but they *should* be aimed squarely at the lawyers and the people who oversaw them.

Also, bear in mind that while to us this is very clear moral issue, Obama doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the political costs of this. He has a country to run, and (dare I be the one to state it out loud?) far more pressing and important issues to focus on. He doesn't get to just decide this is more important than anything ever and drop all else to chase after it.

In every other thing he's done, to date, Obama's played a long game. I have no reason to suspect he's not doing so now, and I'm not so hyped for immediate gratification that I'm unwilling to let him run his play his way and see where it goes.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

To the extent that he's hedged so far, I grant you nothing's been locked down. However, there has been some fairly compelling argument that (a) this isn't Obama's decision -- prosecutions come from the DoJ and the AG, not the executive branch; and (b) not prosecuting both those who facilitated and those who committed torture is contra the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory (and thus bound by our own Constitution).

Politically, polls are consistently showing a majority of US citizens support the prosecution of torturers and their facilitators; that we still support "change" and that many people equate change with the issues of the wars in the Middle East and the concomitant complications (torture being high on the list).

Sure, the economy is a pressing issue and one that demands most of the President's attention for now. But there are plenty of others involved here, notably AG Holder (who needs to start doing his job) and Congress, who would be responsible for, e.g., impeaching a man responsible for justifying torture who now sits on the Federal bench -- for life.

Also, as a general rule in life, while it's good to look forward, that is made both less possible and less effective if we have messes uncleaned-up in the past. This is a big pile of residue from the elephant in the room, and it both stinks and is unsightly. Best to take care of it now, before it breeds disease-bearing insects who cause havoc in the future.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. The President appoints him, and the President can fire him.

Until that changes, there's no way that the AG can be considered independent in any way whatever.

Obama's statement today that prosecuting the architects of torture policy is "up to the Attorney General" is disingenuous. It's passing the hot potato to someone else- no, different metaphor, it's shuffling the cards in a political three-card-Monte game. Find the Lady... and bear in mind that the Lady remains in the dealer's (Obama's) back pocket, no matter where you think the cards are going.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

There have been AGs who went against the President's wishes.

Equally importantly, Obama is beginning to understand that there's widespread desire to get this dealt with, and not just swept under the rug. Here's dday from Hullabaloo on what you call "passing the hot potato":

Read closely here. Obama said he could support an investigation emanating from Congress, and that the decision for prosecution is up to the Attorney General. In other words, shorter Obama: "Leave me out of this." Nobody need rely on his support.

And the President is correct. He doesn't get to decide who is and is not prosecuted in America. That's the responsibility of the Attorney General. And if he wants to take it out of politics, the Attorney General ought to appoint a special prosecutor, as MoveOn and others have called for.

As for the impeachment of Jay Bybee, I have noticed that not only Democratic stalwarts like Sheldon Whitehouse, but even those Villagers disinclined to prosecute, like Joke Line, are comfortable with supporting this measure.

(Personal note: I'm no fan of Joe Klein, but over the past six months, he's gotten enough better that I'm not inclined to use that nickname for him. But this is a direct quote, so.)

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

There have been AGs who went against the President's wishes.

Yes, there have. Once.

Not anytime recently- read, "within my lifetime." Either the AG agrees with the President, or the AG finds a new job- the most recent example being Ashcroft, who stood against Bush on only one thing, and was forced out immediately after Bush's re-election.

And as for a Congressional investigation... Obama's risking nothing by supporting that. How many decades has it been since a Congressional investigation on ANYTHING has led to ANYONE in government being prosecuted for anything whatever?

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

I've been pondering the "long game" implications myself, and my current line of thought has to do with Obama taking this stance while AG Holder goes ahead with prosecutions, which could theoretically earn bonus points for demonstrating that the DoJ is no longer the White House's personal law firm. I don't have much to support this, beyond my own desire to see the DoJ de-politicized, but I'm interested to see what happens, and I'll be pleased if my speculation turns out to be on the mark.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

I'm not betting on Holder. So far, what need to be clangers have shown soft, small, and squishy.

I'd love him to prove me wrong, though.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Sock puppets tend not to have the objects in question.

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

You more or less made the point I was going to make, about the political realities and the demands of the time.

There may be plenty of public support for prosecution, but that doesn't mean it would be a clean or fast process. There are plenty of citizens who still cleave to my-country-right-or-wrong, and lots of powerful vested interests who would also throw up roadblocks. An aggressive prosecution (the only type that would be appropriate, or have any impact) has the potential to become a huge distraction.

Frankly, as an American who is worried about the future of our country and the world, I think we have a duty to focus on the issues that are going to create misery going forward, before spending our energy on recriminations. Climate change, declining energy supplies, and the abuse of power by the financial oligarchy (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice) both stand to create far more misery worldwide than the physical mistreatment of a few individuals, however reprehensible.

More to the point, focusing on climate change, energy, and finance all have the potential to make the future a better place. We're currently on track for a huge amount of global misery -- potentially culminating in the fall of technological civilization -- based on our neglect of these issues. Nothing we can do at this stage will head off all the consequences -- that window closed at least a decade ago -- but prompt action can substantially reduce the future misery which our children will otherwise inevitably inherit.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Frankly, as an American who is worried about the future of our country and the world, I think we have a duty to focus on the issues that are going to create misery going forward, before spending our energy on recriminations.

And you don't believe that giving presidents the power to ignore laws at their own whim won't cause misery going forward?

It's caused misery since at least the LBJ administration, and arguably as far back as Woodrow Wilson...

[a-steep-hill.livejournal.com]

Of course it will, but again the future matters more than the past.

But, yes: I do believe that if we destroy our climate's stability, the total resulting misery will dwarf that created by the actions of any single individual or any single government. Certainly it will go on for longer: our climate legacy will last a thousand years -- far longer than any modern government or state is likely to last.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Consider: tomorrow Obama finds a magic law that will stop climate change in its tracks and keep things where they are now, and he gets it enacted.

As things currently stand, what consequences are there that will prevent the next president from simply ignoring that law, letting polluters resume putting greenhouse gases into the air, and resuming the march of climate change towards either ice-age backlash or Permian-extinction roasting?

Rule of law is more important than climate change legislation, because the latter can't work in a system where the former can't be enforced.

[holzman.livejournal.com]

Embrace the power of "and." While prosecutions should be aimed squarely at the lawyers and the people who oversaw them, they should also be aimed at the people who performed the criminal actions. If you or I get a lawyer to tells us in writing that it's OK to rob a bank, we don't get to wave the memo around and walk away unprosecuted.

Obama doesn't have the luxury of ignoring the political costs of this.

The political costs are what we the people say they are. By speaking up, we make it clear that there is a political cost to letting torturers walk. While I am pleased every time I see President Obama execute an elegant strategy, I remain convinced it is vital that we stay vigilant in pressing him to take the correct course.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right. But it still won't happen. (Though I'd love to be proved wrong.)

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

he's right you know. Ain't gonna happen; the fix is in.

OTOH? If Obama were to simply *allow* the folks from the Hague to do their thing... then he could appear to lose gracefully.

Hmmm. Iraq hangs people for war crimes. The *new, UN-sanctioned* government of Iraq hangs people for war crimes. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

If you haven't seen it already, you'll appreciate this.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I hadn't, and I do. Thanks.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

The comments are interesting. I know some of those people. Some are veterans who where there and actually know what they are talking about. Some are not. I like Charles Stoss' comment best though, see April 21, 2009, 09:58 AM.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I have to disagree with Stoss. Waging aggressive war is a war crime... but it requires an international tribunal, which means handing the accused over to the Hague, which Obama won't do.

On the other hand, torture was and is clearly illegal by domestic law as well as international law, which means we can and should prosecute those who ordered it right here at home.

Obama has given every sign in the world that he doesn't want to do that, though.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

You sure about that? This AP story that moved a couple of hours ago looks like a definite maybe on the domestic part of the equation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogation_memos_2

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I saw that live a couple hours ago. When I heard that, I also heard what Obama didn't say: "... and since I can fire the AG at will, he'll damn well do what I tell him to do on this. Guess what that'll be."

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

As usual, I expect Obama to see which way the parade is going and run around in front. We Will See What Happens, as usual.

Cheers, Susan

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

Orwell.

I was reading about this in the paper this morning, and the story mentioned that one of the detainees had been terrified of insects -- so they locked him in a cage with insects.

That's Room 101.

We have become Oceania. We have spawned The Ministry Of Love.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Ooh! I saw that one on Fear Factor!

If I were a terrorist, I would have let it slip that I was terrified of chocolate and having my space invaded by women.

[selenesue.livejournal.com]

No! Not the M&M's! o_O

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Please, please don't throw me in that there briar patch! ;-)

[joshuwain.livejournal.com]

But, Tom: torture is the viagra of the NeoCon male! How dare we liberals deny them their natural male enhancement?!!

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Oh, Puh-leez! Boo Friggin' Hoo! Do you people ever once consider that waterboarding that guy 183 times probably helped Agent Bauer to diffuse 183 nuclear bombs, all in one day? You think we would have gotten that information if we'd given the terrorists a cup of cocoa and a kitten and sung Kumbaya a few times, like you liberals wanted to do? Would it have been worth 183 more 9/11s just to be able to say you kept your precious little hands clean? Can't make a fritatta without breaking heads, you know!

[pandoradeloeste.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I don't know you/your sense of humor terribly well, and your icon isn't telegraphing "I'm serious" or "I'm joking", so I have to ask: you're joking, right?

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I think the last line makes it clear that it's a joke.

If not that, then the reference to Jack Bauer.

[pandoradeloeste.livejournal.com]

I thought so, but I thought it safer to ask - my sarcasm meter's been a little off this week.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Absolutely joking. As RG says, the Bauer reference is enough to give it away.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

It's also not constitutional. The Framers outlawed torture.

Personally, though, I'd like to see the lot handed over to the International Criminal Court.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

We have at least one Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, who disagrees with you; he claims that torture is not unconstitutional provided it's not handed down by a court as punishment, and provided any testimony gained by that means is not used in court to prosecute the victim. Also, he holds that Constitutional guarantees do not apply to prisoners of war, much less "illegal combatants."

It's a safe bet that Clarence Thomas will follow Scalia's lead, should it come up before them; Sam Alito and John Roberts, who knows?

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

A while back I wrote that the Roberts Court might rival the Taney Court in its failings and it appears they will have their chance. Ole Scaly's mind is a labyrinth of rationalizations, as, apparently, is Thomas's. (And what is a monarchist doing on the Court, anyway?) I think it likely that this also goes for Roberts.

Next, the Senate...

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Scalia was appointed by Nixon.

'Nuff said.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

After the strip search arguments, I think you're on track. They clearly do not have a grip on the word the Knights Who Say Ni cannot bear to hear.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[markbernstein.livejournal.com]

Firedoglake now has a petition, asking Attorney General Holder to appoint a special prosecutor.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

This certainly does explain why they've made such an effort to turn the media's attention toward "Tea Parties".

[realinterrobang.livejournal.com]

That quote from Thiessen, particularly the highlighted bit, provokes in me a sort of uncontrollable mocking laughter, like "Abu Zubaydah told you something...and you believed him?! Oh you damn stupid rube..."

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the plug.

For those interested, I've just posted a follow-up based on developments since I posted the first.

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

I can't believe we're not coming down harder on those expletive-deleted excuses for leaders we used to have. Did we learn nothing from history?

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Yes, we did.

We learned from Nixon that the President can do anything he wants and suffer no consequences.

We learned from Reagan that the President can do anything he wants and not even lose his office.

We learned from Clinton that the President can break statute law and, despite obvious guilt, be defended by his party for solely political reasons.

All of these lessons were applied by Bush: he did anything he wanted, suffered no consequences, kept his office, broke multiple statute laws, ADMITTED it, and was defended by his political party for solely political reasons.

Obama appears set to follow his example.

(And yes, I believe that the only post-FDR presidents that should not have been impeached were Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Carter. Every one of the others clearly broke the law or exceeded constitutional authority- and should have suffered the consquences. They didn't, and that's why we are where we are now.)

[lovefromgirl.livejournal.com]

I was thinking along the lines of everybody else's history, but yes, those are very valid examples. *facepalm* Sad day when I can look at my German heritage and say, "At least their war criminals got punished" -- and feel prouder to be the granddaughter of a Wehrmacht conscript than a citizen of the United States of America.

[avt-tor.livejournal.com]

"The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely."


That's not the job of the state. If I may quote: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Civil servants should not be helping people with their religious duties.

[bayushisan.livejournal.com]

Those who enabled the toture of enemy forces should be held accountable for breaking American law. No more, no less because no one is above the law.

What I find incomprehensible is the attitude being taken by many of the talking heads.

O'Reilly: "Mistakes happen in war and you should prosecute anyone and if you want to prosecute people for you're only doing it to embarass the country."

Glenn Beck: "Presidents have to be able to make tough, controversial decisions and prosecuting a previous administration for doing things you disagree with will have a chilling effect on future administrations.

Hannity: "Harsh interrogation techniques are the only way to protect America."

Megan Kelly: "The Geneva Conventions don't apply to Al'Queda because they aren't an organized fighting force and they wouldn't give us those conditions."

It's reaching levels of insanity I never thought I'd see and I'm not sure what to think any more. It's things like this that made me leave the Republican Party.

[gardnerhill.livejournal.com]

I keep hoping that Obama's letting the lampreys slither out of the net because he wants to haul in the sharks.

If nothing else the trials will be high entertainment. Last week screaming mobs of hate-filled dittoheads called for Obama's blood because he gave them a fucking tax cut. Can't wait to see the reaction of the white-stupid-n-heavily-armed if Obama prosecutes any of the higher-ups from the Vordarian Administration.