The recent controversy surrounding the release of the CIA “torture memos” has become the number one issue on American political scene – far surpassing the much debated stimulus package, Mr. Obama’s controversial “good will” tour, or even the recent furor over the authenticity and the true meaning of the “tea-parties.” And understandably so, for there has been a lot of gear–shifting of late and changing of minds since the decision was first reached to make these memos public.
Indeed, the initial assurances that no one will be charged – least of all, the underlings – have given way to the possibility that some of the lawyers and the ex-president’s legal advisors might, not to mention the ex-president himself and his closest staff. This would seem to fly in the face of Mr. Obama’s assurances that he wasn't going to engage in divisive politics but look instead to the future, not to mention the possibility that he just might be influenced in the matter of the unfolding scandal by the polls, or public sentiment, or the growing pressure from the radical Left – just as he was, some would say, in the matter of the AIG bonuses.
This wouldn't bode well for the new president, so the argument goes, who ought to be nothing but desirous of securing as much good will and public support as he possibly can (especially in light of the economic crisis and other urgent matters facing us). In short, he’s only shooting himself in the foot, and more, by this sudden reversal or at least by entertaining the possibility of future prosecution.
This is the gist of a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Presidential Poison," April 23, online edition.
The editors argue that there is nothing to be gained from pursuing this matter any further, and among the reasons they cite are such disparate things as possible damage to the CIA morale at the time when we need them the most, the members of the Congress who have seemingly approved of the questionable interrogative tactics, the Madame Speaker included, not to mention Mr. Obama himself who would only be squandering his immense popularity and political capital, which thus far surpass his unpopular polices, were he to engage in any course of action that would even smack of retaliation for sins past. In fact, they go as far as say that doing that would put us on the level of such “lawless” countries as Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, “where law is treated merely as an extension of political power.” And as a measure of common sense and what they deem as reasonable policy, they suggest that the president should rest content with the recent policy changes at Guantanamo and other interrogation facilities and leave it at that. Why dig into the past and risk the spirit of bi-partisanship, they wonder?
Article comments
1 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
I read Ms Rabinowitz's article and I have to say I agree with her and disagree with you. There are plenty of times when secrecy is in order, such as in cases of national security. And that's precisely what this issue is about.
What really stings me about the whole thing, what really gets my goat: When 9/11 happened, Liberals were the first to scream what did the administration know and when did they know it? How could such an attack have been prevented? The 9/11 commission was established to dig into the details of our past and ensure that the attacks of 9/11 couldn't happen again.
Now, less than a decade later, instead of being thankful for not having another attack, we are navel gazing again in a pre-911 mindset. Apparently we no longer believe that we have enemies, or at least believe that we are safe from them. We've shown the enemy our playbook, and have twisted the meaning of torture to include the merely uncomfortable.
From where I stand, looking at the great city of New York, where my family and I work on a daily basis, I can tell you that any activity that does not cause permanent harm, used with discretion, that will keep my family and I safe from another terror attack, should absolutely be used. And any honest review of our use of EIT on the few high ranking AQ officials proves that it was rarely used and with discretion, and all those "tortured" lived to tell about it intact.
2 - roger nowosielski
Well, OA, we'll just have a polite disagreement from now on because we have reached a common ground a few days ago.
My position is this. The Bush administration had near total support immediately after 9/11, not only in the US but worldwide; but it was squandered (I shan't go into the reasons).
I'm also not arguing here, if you notice, for elimination of all secrecy, especially in matters which truly involve national security. All I am saying that IMO there has been sufficient back and forth and twisting of arms to alter definitions of torture to suit the administration's purposes - and that alone warrants an investigation whether laws were broken in the event of a cover-up - not to convict, mind you, but to look into it. And not out of any sense of vindictiveness but in the interest of full disclosure. I believe the American public deserves nothing less.
As to what ought to be the proper definition of "torture" and to what cases it ought to or ought not to apply, I shall leave this matter to the legal minds and the passage of time. Time always tends to correct past abuses and bring us up to date. And Dan Miller's article, more than mine, addresses this particular issue.
Roger
3 - The Obnoxious American
The point, well made in the journal article, was that legal minds did decide on this, and they decided it was legal.
You're suggesting that they look into it, but not actually convict anyone. But originally, the point was to release the memos, but look forward. The reality is that you can't merely investigate and then not convict. You and I both know that's not going to happen.
So what does that leave us? With a culture of leadership that is less civil than it was before. Obama has set the standard for attacking the previous administration on political differences, and spending an awful lot of time noting that he is different from the prior administration. If this trend were to extend beyond his presidency, and my guess is that now it will, what value will our leaders be providing to the public? Not a whole heck of a lot. And that's the problem.
Not quite the hope and change he promised during the election. I have a feeling, even with his continued good polling, that were the election held today, Obama would not win.
4 - roger nowosielski
First, I disagree about your forecast, OA, as to what if ... But let's get down to basics, shall we?
Do you agree or not that the the matter of abuses that had come to light in Abu Ghraib - the pictures and all - was properly handled or not?
We do know that a number of people were charged and convicted by military courts. And lest we forget, the Republicans were in power at the time.
So let's start with that, shall we?
5 - The Obnoxious American
If we're really going to get back to basics, let's recognize that the so called atrocities in Abu Ghraib were not nearly as atrocious as the actions of our enemies on our military or even our civilians (9/11, Daniel Pearl, etc). Moreover, while what happened in Abu Ghraib was terrible, let's not pretend that this kind of thing didn't happen (or worse) in virtually every war mankind has ever been engaged in. You think there wasn't something that someone did wrong throughout the Vietnam or Korean conflicts? What about in WWII? What about in wars before that? And yet we did prosecute wrongdoing.
Abu Ghraib has NOTHING to do with Enhance Interrogation. To suggest otherwise is to make a false strawman. EIT was reviewed by lawyers for legality - the same lawyers Obama now wants to prosecute. Our enemy combatants are not prisoners of war and merely making a terrorist uncomfortable is not torture.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but torture in my book is chopping off body parts, raping or killing the family of the torturee in his presence, gouging, burning, etc etc.
Dribbling water on someone to induce the fear drowning in order to get them to talk and save American lives is coercive, it's right on the line, but it's also a pretty sane compromise, especially given the mindset post 9/11 and that is the point. Take off the hindsight glasses and put yourself back in the US on 9/12/2001.
6 - roger nowosielski
Well, OA. The legal definition of torture is in the process of changing - to include what you call "dribbling water on someone," so you're clearly going to be out of step. Will you be pushing for a reversal, then, to the old standards, like some are pushing for a reversal of Roe vs Wade?
And I don't buy into this politics of fear to dictate American foreign policy for times to come - 9/11 notwithstanding. If you truly believe in American Exceptionalism as per the recent article you wrote, we've got to show some leadership in all areas. You can't be holding on to the ideas of the past because it's no longer the same world. And as the world has changed, so must America. I'm no less patriotic than you, believe you me, and hate to see the old lady go, but facts are facts.
How different are you really from Ruvy when it comes to your views of America's enemies? I'd think about that if I were you.
7 - The Obnoxious American
Roger,
Any hint of irony in anything you are talking about? The left chastizes Bush for water boarding, calling it illegal. But it's not actually illegal, so they change the laws to make it so? And then you're going to smugly call me out of step? I have to laugh.
Realize, I don't actually favor making abortion illegal. I think it's wrong, murder for sure as per the definition of the word. But enacting a law that results in women dying by hanger isn't a great solution either. What is called for is a change in culture to instill more responsibility in people, or to quote Hillary, Legal and rare. Shocking how I don't fit into the mold you made for me eh?
Politics of fear, you mean the same politics Obama used to push through trillions in new spending or we'd possibly never recover? Please. The world has NOT changed, and America needs to look out for it's interests or we will be reliving 9/11. As someone who was here in NYC on that terrible day, that's an outcome I'd much rather avoid.
And while I don't agree with Ruvy on many things, I do agree with him when it comes to our enemies, many of which are shared, and most of which will not be moved by Obama's apologetics.
8 - roger nowosielski
Why don't you check Miller's site, especially Cindy's comments and the links she provided to see that this whole issue is still veiled with controversy and solid difference of legal opinion> Then we'll talk.
9 - Bliffle
Waterboarding is torture and is illegal under international law. It is also illegal under USA law.
Pettifogging and quibbling, notwithstanding.
Can we "dribble some water" in your face, OA?
Would you like to join Sean Hannity?
10 - roger nowosielski
These are minor matters, bliffle. For if you are an enemy of America, everything is justified in order to protect her. See, we're dealing here with super patriots, ready to defend her integrity and honor to the bitter end and spill others' blood.
11 - Clavos
If blood is to be spilled, and let's not kid ourselves, the jihadists have spilled plenty of blood and will continue to do so until stopped, better it be the blood of others than our own.
12 - roger nowosielski
Well, we've been trying to do this in Iraq, Clavos, for seven years now and counting, in accord with the good old policy that we don't want to fight the terrorists at home but in their own backyard. But what has this got to do with "enhanced interrogation techniques" (see, I put it this way so we can get around the inconvenient little moral question)? How were those techniques really instrumental in preventing bloodshed? This still remains the one big and unanswered question by all the ardent supporters of those techniques. So even if we overlook for the moment the finer points as regards the legality or morality of the practice, there's still a lacuna with respect to evidence which would argue to the efficacy of these techniques.