On April 16, the Obama administration released four secret memos detailing detainee treatment during the Bush administration. Simultaneously, the president pledged not to prosecute the US intelligence officials who were involved in those activities.
This is clearly a compromise that truly pleases no one, but it demonstrates President Obama's deft skill in the art of political negotiation. Republicans didn't want the memos released at all, but are relieved that the President agreed to take prosecution off the table by stating, "At a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."
On the other side of the political spectrum, the ACLU is dissatisfied by the compromise, stating, ""Enforcing the nation's laws should not be a political decision."
I cheer the release of the memos. For me, this half of the announcement is the easy one. There was never any valid excuse to make the memos secret, as there was never any justification for the acts the memos describe. The other half of the announcement, the decision not to prosecute for the acts of torture, is the difficult part.
So who's right and who's wrong regarding the decision not to prosecute? Oops, wrong question. By my own sense of moral behavior, the ACLU is right on target. Immoral acts and crimes against the laws of the United States were committed. But that's not a workable and practical answer. If President Obama had held to that position, he would have created a pitched partisan battle which would have destroyed his ability to get Republican acceptance of any of his appointees or his agenda.
So was the compromise worthwhile? In my opinion, yes. While my sense of justice demands punishment for the guilty, my desire for at least a modicum of bipartisan agreement on the future of our country trumps the value of prosecutions. So, very reluctantly, I endorse President Obama's decision to compromise and forgo prosecution of those who carried out the torture.
Unfortunately, the President's decision is going to weaken his support among his most ardent and idealistic supporters. They expect and demand that he hold fire to the feet of all those of the previous administration who broke the law. Will that hue and cry quiet soon? Probably not. How soon unappreciative Liberals forget the vast improvements we have already seen under President Obama, including the January 22 Executive order that reversed the Bush era torture policy a mere two days after President Obama's inauguration!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
I think Obama is right on this one. If you are going to pursue legal action it should be against Bush, not the people at the bottom. If you get a memo from Justice and have the president's approval to do things like put a caterpillar in a prisoner's cell, then you believed what you were doing is legal and should not face punishment.
Also, a little history for you. Waterboarding, and alot of the techniques mention in the memos have been used in training american pilots and other critical personnel for decades in SERE training. The purpose is to prepare them for some of what they might face if they are ever interrogated.
If these methods are torture then we've been torturing our own military men and women for years. This system might have desensitized them to the 'torture' aspects of these techniques (ie. if they had to go through it why don't avowed terrorists?)
2 - roger nowosielski
Right. The orders usually originate at the top. To punish the underlings is just a cop-out.
3 - Mark
Wrong -- we are responsible for our actions as individuals. When ordered to torture, just say no.
4 - roger nowosielski
To punish the perpetrators and to let Bush and the higher echelon off the hook would be a miscarriage of justice - nothing but a pretense that something is being done and, ultimately, but a PR job.
I wasn't commenting on the culpability of everyone involved, only on the reality of the situation.
5 - Cindy
That criminals like Bush and Cheney have never really been been on the hook shows a lot about what justice means in the US.
6 - Mark
While it is important to indict those who issued the orders, it is equally important to point out that final responsibility rests with those who carried them out.
7 - Doug Hunter
"When ordered to torture, just say no."
Again, that's a grand platitude, the question is what constitues 'torture'. If tomorrow they decided that putting someone in jail constituted 'torture', you could then turn around and prosecute everyone in the prison/jail system. It's arbitrary and that's the point. You can't punish people for actions taken in good faith when there is no clearly defined law for them to reference in the first place.
These aren't tortures in the old sense of physical harm, this is a new age and a new realm of mental torture.
If you think using a caterpillar to interrogate a suspect constitutes torture then by all means drag Bush through the streets and crucify him on the closet pole, but leave those who weren't aware of the horrific dangers of caterpillars to their own ignorance.
8 - roger nowosielski
Right, the Nuremberg Trial argument. But the atrocities are not comparable. In addition, it wasn't the foot soldier than was on trial there but the higher ups.
By the same token, you could "indict" the whole German nation for standing by - at least on moral grounds. But you must distinguish that from legal/criminal proceedings.
Human justice is not absolute or God-like. To pretend it ever could be like that is to ignore the ugly reality and the world of Realpolitik.
9 - Mark
Doug, I could get behind a prison system that no one would work in -- acknowledged as the torture that it is for the vast majority of its guests.
Rog, in the world of real politics, no one will be held responsible for the torture. In the end, all we will be able to do is to say, 'don't do that.'
10 - roger nowosielski
Well, we're past that era. There are new definitions now in effect, and new laws.
Will we see more abuses? Of course. But I'd like to think there'll be a legal ground.
I just don't think you can't always rectify the past.
11 - Cindy
#6
Mark,
I agree with that and #3.
12 - roger nowosielski
Don't think, Mark, I am any less idealistic than you are - although we both know that our idealism springs from different sources. Our disagreement has more to do with what you and I think is realistic or feasible, not with the principle of the thing.
13 - Cindy
At a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.
Laying blame? It's a bit more than about laying blame It's about justice for criminal acts against people--for war crimes.
Somehow this is missed in what amounts to the repackaging of the real point made in such a statement. I am getting pretty sick of hearing this.
Do you realize that there is no need at all now for any investigation? Some of the CIA members--I've read, up to 50%--supported release of the memos. I also read an interview with an ex-Gitmo guard who did not take part in torture and had some very telling things to say about those who did. Perspectives could be changed with testimony from these people.
Aside from the miscarriage of justice involved, that this issue will not be opened is a travesty. We won't hear testimony from people who actually did disapprove. The next potential recruits into a similar government scheme won't have the opportunity to have learned anything from this.
Burying things and moving right along isn't a good way to change anything. Obama is guilty of helping to coverup war crimes and pardon criminals.
Also, from what I read there was pressure from the CIA not to release the memos--so I am wondering was it the Republicans or the CIA or both? I don't recall a story that mentioned both. Is your info from Scott Horton or somewhere else Jonathan?
14 - Cindy
The reality is (the real reality) that the only way a government can commit crimes, is with participation. If everyone refused to participate, the crimes could not have been committed.
The Geneva Conventions provide for asylum for conscientious objectors to government crimes. Canada takes this seriously enough to have given asylum to a couple hundred US Iraq war objectors.
Canadian court rules U.S. soldier forced to violate Geneva Convention
Obedience to authority is not an excuse for 'just doing a job' that includes torture.
15 - Mark
precisely
16 - roger nowosielski
There's no disagreement here about the principles, Mark, only as regards the effectiveness of their application. The world is improving, hopefully. But your Marxist ideology is getting the better of you. You want instant results, here and now. It ain't gonna happen.
17 - Cindy
As I grew up, I noticed people moved, even to tears, when faced with dramatic stories, film, writings, music and events that imspired the 'idea' of principles. But often enough they did not try to apply the principles they cried over. Some of them even scorned others, who did try. It was as if there was some disconnect between believing in something enough to be touched by it and and believing in something enough to act like you believed in it.
18 - pablo
Nice post Cindy.
19 - roger nowosielski
Pablo,
I command your sentiments, but even outrage and feelings of indignations have got to be directed at something, someone. Any expression of such in a vacuum as it were, is pointless and a waste of time. One should save it for times and occasions when it really counts. Otherwise, you're only cheapen one of the few potent weapons available.
So my question to you, Pablo, is this: Was I the object of this "religious conversion"? And if not so, then who? John Q Public?
All discussions and debates are contextual. Even the treatises we write, because they're geared to a particular audience. So let me see. There's Mark here, already a believer. I'm in the same category, I should say. And good ole Doug Hunter. None other until you checked in, God bless.
So unless these high-minded comments are directed at Doug, then I fail to see whom they are meant to convince. Of course, they may be meant for the benefit of posterity - all generations past, present, and future. Or simply to make oneself feel better. (The latter, by the way, I consider as bastardization of public communication and by and large juvenile in nature. It belongs more properly in a private diary than a public forum.)
So my point, friend? And please don't judge me.
Roger
20 - roger nowosielski
I get it now, Pablo.
So here is my suggestion. When you do get to answer this, let's plan a march on Washington, you and I together, so we might reverse Obama's decision.
That will show 'em.
21 - Dr Dreadful
I think that:
(a) Holder's contention that it would be unfair to prosecute interrogators because they were following orders is bollocks. He knows full well what the precedent is.
(b) The Justice Department's pledge to provide legal counsel at no cost to any potential defendants is rather cunning. It absolves Washington of responsibility while leaving the door open for the possibility of private prosecutions.
(c) Still, be it right or wrong that they should be prosecuted, notice that we are focusing on the little guys here? There won't be any action against those higher up who authorized and ordered torture.
22 - roger nowosielski
Exactly. (C) is the bone of contention.
I'd regard it as a miscarriage of justice and the height of hypocrisy to stick it to the little guys - not that they're blameless by any means, only that to do so would only create the impression that something is being done.
IMO, it would be worse than a witch hunt, because unlike with witch hunt, the main culprits are well known.
23 - pablo
Is it just me, or did anyone else on here notice the conspicuous absence of Nalle weighing in on this article with his one cent's worth. Where is the great libertarian when he is needed? hehehe
What about it Nalle? Prosecute? Or perhaps let the goons slide for obeying their fuhrer. What say you?
Roger, I do not really understand what your quetion is, since I only put in a one liner thank you on this thread to Cindy.
As far as I am concerned Osama (Obama) showed his true colors once again (no that was not meant to be racist), and that he is nothing more than another paid employee of the Wall Street Gang whos henchmen are the CIA. Torturing other human beings is one of the most disgusting, vile, and inhuman acts in this world, and the fact that Obama is letting the torturers go speaks volumes about his true character, or lack thereof.
24 - roger nowosielski
Pablo,
My question is perhaps best expressed in my #22 (in response to #21). Which isn't to question to validity concerning Cindy's remark, with respect to which you expressed approval. But my point was that that remark, in this particular case, was beside the point - again for the reasons stated in my #22.
I think it's rather naive not to see the larger picture and be moved only by our sense of what's just and right - not unless of course we have the means and the wherewithal to rectify all the abuses and injustices. And in the absence of that, it's just dust in the wind.
25 - zingzing
roger: "By the same token, you could "indict" the whole German nation for standing by - at least on moral grounds."
they were pretty well punished, wouldn't you say?