President-elect Barack Obama appears to be signaling that he is not inclined to investigate crimes committed by the Bush Administration. In an interview with ABC News program “This Week With George Stephanopoulos”, he picked up on the recent Democratic spin that we should all “look to the future and not the past” even if the past happens to contain war crimes committed by his predecessor. I just finished an interview on Talk of the Nation on which I debated the issue with Harvard Professor and former solicitor general Charles Fried. I also discussed the issue on MSNBC Countdown.
Many civil libertarians are concerned that this will be another flip-flop from Obama after he surprised many by voting in favor of telecom immunity. During the campaign, he made it clear that he believed that waterboarding is torture, an inescapable position. Yet, the deductive reasoning is inescapable. If waterboarding is torture and torture is a war crime, then the Bush Administration committed war crimes. Yet, it appears that once again practicalities have proven the enemy of principle. With many insisting that such an investigation would be a distraction. It is the latest spin from democrats. Democrats first insisted that they could do nothing about criminal programs like the torture and surveillance programs because they did not control Congress. Then, when they controlled Congress, they insisted that there was not enough time left in the Administration to investigate and that we would have to wait for the next Administration. Now that they have been given the White House, they are insisting that we need to look forward and not behind.
The latest theme seemed to be what Obama was raising in the interview. When asked about his position, he immediately stated his “belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.” He then defended those who committed the torture: “And part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the C.I.A., you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got spend their all their time looking over their shoulders.”
No one seriously expects the torturers to be prosecuted, though I have far less sympathy for people who commit torture. In a nation committed to the rule of law, people should be looking over their shoulder when they are contemplating a war crime.
For the interview, click here.
For the full story, click here.
Mespo,
One clarification. We call them the Bush Cabinet!
rafflaw:
The neo-cons define scholarly disagreement as finding one would-be felon with a college degree who can put together two sentences of English which attempt to convince the rest of us that what we clearly see before our eyes is false. When I was a kid we called these people carnys with their shell games –or con men selling “money making” machines.” Now we call them the Cabinet.
Mespo,
I have attempted twice to respond to Alan, but my responses are awaiting moderation, but I couldn’t have said it any better than your response. You are spot on when you talk about the attempt by the neocons to claim that there is a legitimate scholarly disagreement concerning waterboarding. The only thing that I would add is that the FBI considers waterboarding as torture and even pulled its people out of Gitmo when they witnessed torture.
Allan:
I love the way you approach waterboarding as if it were some modern and novel form of torture of which we knew nothing before 9/11. I have no doubt that the “know-nothings” of the Bush Administration knew very little about history before taking office. However, the rest of us do read and have lived outside of the elitist or evangelical bubbles that crippled this latest version of the “Republicans who couldn’t shoot straight.”
Waterboarding has been regarded as torture since the 14th Century (tormenta de toca) and, in our country, since at least the Spanish American War (In re: Courts Martial of Major Edwin Glenn), and we have prosecuted Japanese soldiers for this practice during WW2 (e.g. U.S. v. Yukio Asano-15 years hard labor). To pretend there is some debate over this point aligns you squarely with the sophists even now are trying to keep the Bush/Cheney mob out of prison. Like most smokescreens this one will blow away, but I fear not before deluding impressionable and “useful idiots” like yourself. As a famous person once said, “quit peeing on my leg and trying to convince me its raining,” or, as in your case, trying to convince me that peeing is some new revelation to mankind.
I will try this response again since my first attempt is mired awaiting moderation:
Jill,
I understand your worries, but I think you have to look at what the Democratic Congress is suggesting when it comes to investigations. I think Conyers bill is only a start. Secondly, I still believe that Obama will investigate Bush and Cheney’s crimes when it comes to torture, at least. I say this because of who he has appointed to head the OLC. Dawn Johnsen(I think I have the spelling correct) is a very outspoken critic of the illegal actions taken by Bush. Now, the tough questions is what is going to be her influence on Obama. I think she will have an influence and I also think the Congress will be forcing the action as well. I know that sounds strange when I suggest that Congress is going to do the correct thing and induce Obama to investigate, but that is what I see so far. (I have my fingers crossed, as well!)
Alan,
You may want to actually see what the FBI thinks of the success of torture in producing actionable intelligence instead of looking at people who were part of the decision to torture and use them as evidence. What do you expect Tenet and Rice and Bush and Cheney to say about it, other than it was legal and we saved lives? The weakness of your argument is magnified when you use the torture authorizers as evidence. Here is a link to a CBS report quoting FBI director Mueller stating that the FBI removed its interrogators on a number of occasions when it deemed the tactics as illegal. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/national/main4039946.shtml.
In this Washington Post article, the following quote discusses the FBI agents opinion of the success of the torture:”In another e-mail, dated Dec. 5, 2003, an agent complained about military tactics, including the alleged use of FBI impersonators. “These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and . . . have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee,” the agent wrote. “If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will be not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the ‘FBI’ interrogators.” ‘ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer.
Finally, Alan, even though the FBI didn’t think torture works, it is still torture and still illegal, even if it “works”! However, it is a shame for you and other neocons that not only is it blatantly illegal, it is non-productive.
Jill,
If I’m not mistaken, I think I warned you about this more than half a year ago.
Like I said, the only way to hold the Bush Administration accountable will probably be through state law and the the extent a state constitution sets a higher ceiling than the fed constitution.
——–
If it happens, the credit for this belongs to JT.
Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of American Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049, 1064-66 (2000)
What does Cuomo’s office say?
Jill,
I understand your worries, but I think you have to look at what the Democratic Congress is suggesting when it comes to investigations. I think Conyers bill is only a start. Secondly, I still believe that Obama will investigate Bush and Cheney’s crimes when it comes to torture, at least. I say this because of who he has appointed to head the OLC. Dawn Johnsen(I think I have the spelling correct) is a very outspoken critic of the illegal actions taken by Bush. Now, the tough questions is what is going to be her influence on Obama. I think she will have an influence and I also think the Congress will be forcing the action as well. I know that sounds strange when I suggest that Congress is going to do the correct thing and induce Obama to investigate, but that is what I see so far. (I have my fingers crossed, as well!)
Alan,
You may want to actually see what the FBI thinks of the success of torture in producing actionable intelligence instead of looking at people who were part of the decision to torture and use them as evidence. What do you expect Tenet and Rice and Bush and Cheney to say about it, other than it was legal and we saved lives? The weakness of your argument is magnified when you use the torture authorizers as evidence. Here is a link to a CBS report quoting FBI director Mueller stating that the FBI removed its interrogators on a number of occasions when it deemed the tactics as illegal. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/national/main4039946.shtml.
In this Washington Post article, the following quote discusses the FBI agents opinion of the success of the torture:”In another e-mail, dated Dec. 5, 2003, an agent complained about military tactics, including the alleged use of FBI impersonators. “These tactics have produced no intelligence of a threat neutralization nature to date and . . . have destroyed any chance of prosecuting this detainee,” the agent wrote. “If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will be not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the ‘FBI’ interrogators.” ‘ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14936-2004Dec20?language=printer.
Finally, Alan, even though the FBI didn’t think torture works, it is still torture and still illegal, even if it “works”! However, it is a shame for you and other neocons that not only is it blatantly illegal, it is non-productive.
‘I have never believed that Obama was other than a center right extremely savvy politican. You know that I have expressed worries about him many times before on this blog. One of my main concerns has always been that Obama seems to have followers, not citizen voters. I thinking having followers is dangerous. It inflates the ego of the “leader” and keeps people from thinking about what the “leader” is actually saying and doing.’
———
This from the ‘citizen voter’ who didn’t even know if she was properly registered right up until the day of the most important election of the century, much less if her votes were counted during the last two, but who supported Cynthia McKinney as her President
– despite McKinney being considered, by many from her own district, one outburst short of being fitted for a straightjacket.
Obama was not my first choice, but I don’t regret voting for him over McCain. Although he will be missed in the Senate, I’m delighted Joe Biden will be ex officio President of the Senate. He’s bound to get an earful and listen, unless I miss my guess.
mespo, the NYT article is the same one Buddha posted. I pasted one of the encouraging parts from it. And I agree with Michael S. and the few others who posted here, as I’ve stated repeatedly to counter ‘the negativity factor’, I am prepared to wait until after the swearing in ceremony.
Along with JT, seeing Obama with his hand on the Bible, I’ll be saying a silent prayer for ‘Principle’. Without that, it don’ mean a thing…
In the meantime, lotsa noise, please, in your own States would be most helpful.
I am extremely disappointed in Obama’s attitude towards not looking back or holding these people accountable for their crimes. We just lived through 8 years of an administration that never looked back and never learned from its mistakes. How many times did we hear, “I/we can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.” And then when the investigation was over and there was a conviction, it was time to “move on” – case closed. We can’t move on from illegal wars and torture in the eyes of the world unless we apologize and punish those responsible. We NEED to look back to move forward.
Mike,
I absolutely agree that we are perilously close to facism, if not already there. Many people believe Obama is staying silent until he gets into power. That argument doesn’t hold water for me because these people could order whatever they like, whether they are in office or not. Remember, they are connected to the intelligence community and private contractors through and through. Holding office doesn’t really matter. In addition when I look at Obama’s voting record and other decisions I don’t see a rebel. I see a person who’s statements and appointments do not deviate from his past, often authoritarian decisions. I worry that people will keep giving Obama the benefit of the doubt when he doesn’t deserve it. We will fall all the way into fascism without a clear eyed understanding of our political “leaders” and this includes Obama. I just read the following from Glenn Greenwald. In case you didn’t already read it I excerpted some from his column.
“Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it’s best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It’s always better — far better — for a politician to know that he’s being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don’t.
Right this moment, there are enormous pressures being exerted on Obama not to make significant changes in the areas of civil liberties, intelligence policy and foreign affairs. That pressure is being exerted by the intelligence community, by the permanent Pentagon structures, by status-quo-loving leaders of both political parties, by authority-worshipping Beltway “journalists” and pundits (such as the ones who wrote the wretched though illustrative “What Would Dick Do?” cover story for this week’s Newsweek).
If those who want fundamental reform in these areas adopt the view that they will not criticize Barack Obama because to do so is to “help Republicans,” or because he deserves more time, or because criticisms are unnecessary because we can trust in him to do the right thing, or because criticizing him is to “tear him down” or “create a circular firing squad” or “be a Naderite purist” or any of those other empty platitudes, then they are ceding the field to the very powerful factions who are going to fight vehemently against any changes. Do you think that those who want the CIA to retain “robust” interrogation powers and who want the federal surveillance state maintained, or want a hard-line towards Iran and a continuation of our Middle East policies, or who want to maintain corporate-lobbyist-domination of Washington, are sitting back saying: “it’s not right to pressure Obama too much right now; give him some time”?
It’s critical that Obama — and the rest of the political establishment — hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday. This dynamic prevails with all political issues. Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins — period.”
* * * * *
Jill,
I appreciate, empathize with and share some of your trepidation. I certainly couldn’t prove you wrong right now and i wouldn’t try to. However, my perspective, possibly paranoid is that under bush the country has come perilously close to fascism; our MSM for the most part has very little more credibility than did Pravda during the heyday of the USSR and probably now; the crazies in this country get taken seriously (see Ann Coulter), and those with true power can react viciously when that power is threatened(see the Kennedy’s, M.L King, Malcolm X, etc.). While you might answer that how come if this is true we’re allowed to speak as we do and I would answer that you and I and others don’t really threaten the power structure. A new President, especially a very smart one, with no fully defined history is a different matter. So far I am judging Obama by how he’s led his life and what his past priorities have been. I believe that he might be smart enough and committed enough to pull off real change like FDR did. If that is true though, he needs to watch his back and keep his own counsel. That being said it very possible i’m far wrong and far too idealistic. It wouldn’t be the first time.
–First, this is from http://www.nysun.com/national/tenet-aggressive-interrogations-brought-us/53222/
A CIA program to administer aggressive interrogations to top Al Qaeda leaders brought America more valuable information about planned terror plots than all of the government’s other intelligence gathering efforts, a former director of central intelligence, George Tenet, has declared.
Mr. Tenet said the program was needed to deal with threats that emerged after September 11, 2001, including reports that there might be nuclear bombs in New York.
“I know that this program has saved lives. I know we’ve disrupted plots,” Mr. Tenet said in a “60 Minutes” interview set to air Sunday before the release of his new book. “I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us,” he said.
–Second, Condoleeza Rice testified that the use of waterboarding in 2002-2003 was legal and useful.
–Third, to mespo…you asked:
“Under what construction of language do you conclude that my case “rests on the threat of imminent death?””
It is clear from the definition of “mental pain or suffering”, (which you conveniently failed to cite). Go back and read the definition and you will see my point. None of the other examples of pain and suffering fit the case.
I point out that “mental pain and suffering” means something quite different to a law scholar who has grown up in a genteel society under the protection of the armed forces of the US than it does to a terrorist or a war-fighter in the field. It’s probably mental pain and suffering to such a legal scholar to miss the latest episode of SNL.
–Fourth, is it valid legal argument to revert to ad hominem attacks, such as calling me a “troll”, accusing me of relying on “fattening alcoholic beverages” or being “delusional”?
–Fifth, I would not and am not trying to justify the Abu Graib disaster, nor the techniques used there. I doubt that these techniques will be traceable to the President for war crimes, however. Some of these techniques were undoubtedly torture, as they physically maimed and psychologically destroyed some prisoners.
For the supporters of Prof Turley… lets back him on all fronts.
From an advoacy site, our ‘signatures’ and outrage are being heard
“So we need your help again to continue our efforts to persuade President-elect Obama to appoint a Special Prosecutor. Please vote for our question again at a great independent website called change.org (not Obama’s change.gov):
http://tinyurl.com/5ohjyl
You can also vote for 9 other questions. We hope you’ll also vote for “Get FISA Right, repeal the PATRIOT Act, and restore our civil liberties.”
http://tinyurl.com/8ovtnt
Voting closes Thursday at 5 pm and the the top 10 finishers will be announced at the National Press Club on Friday – so please vote today.
Thanks all for your articulate insights and willingness to
think rather than just reacting.
A Karno
Mike,
“Let’s wait to see what Obama really does when he takes office.”
—————————————————————-
I disagree with you on this point. I have never believed that Obama was other than a center right extremely savvy politican. You know that I have expressed worries about him many times before on this blog. One of my main concerns has always been that Obama seems to have followers, not citizen voters. I thinking having followers is dangerous. It inflates the ego of the “leader” and keeps people from thinking about what the “leader” is actually saying and doing. The main stream press has done very little questioning of Obama. Mostly they have been his insipid cheerleaders. They seem completely in accord with him on prosecution for war crimes, and most of his cabinet picks. (Mike, I could be really off on that because I don’t have a lot of contact with MSM but when I have, this seems to be the case.)
In my mind, Obama has benefited from good hearted but desperate followers who do not want to question what he is actually doing, because they want him to be a certain way. They want him to make things right again, and to question him would expose this belief to doubt.
Two days ago Obama renounced the NIE on Iran and said they have a nuclear weapon. I want to know why he believes this and what this belief portends. I want Obama to get the message that “we the people” are looking over his shoulder, and he needs to do the right thing. He has shown some very poor judgement in votes and appointments. Citizens should question their president, making their own thoughts and demands known, not in the future, but right now.
mespo.
Thanks. I caught that also, along with his use of several false analogies. He basically brought out the big book of specious argumentation, and you’re right, JT handled every one of them!
seamus,
I’m sensing anger from you. Usually you’re so reticent in speaking your mind. Some would even call you a wallflower!
Jill:
Very insightful commentary on advocacy. You did omit one glaring debater’s trick employed by the ex-Solicitor General: the “wait a minute I didn’t follow what meant by that” gambit. Fried tried that twice and JT handled it very nicely by saying, without a hint of chiding, “that’s what I am explaining right now.”
I expected this from Hillary. I thought Obama would have some balls. I’ve had nothing but disgust for that spineless-hack Pellosi for her years of inaction against a transparently fascist administration. More than shoes need to be thrown at these assholes.
Somebody needs to throw the God damned book at these Saudi-loving, torture-loving, fake-Christian, closeted-homo (not that there’s anything wrong with that), corporate wellfare-loving, ass-weasels.
Let’s prey that some crazy French bastard engages in some extraordinary rendition and brings the lot to face charges in the Hauge. We’re sure as Hell not going to do iot here.
JT,
Your having this blog is good for many reasons but one of them really shined in your debate with Mr. Fried. It was obvious that he had never really confronted people, in a deep and repectful manner, who disagreed with him. One of the things I value on this blog is the chance to read the reasoned opinions of people who feel very differently from how I do about a topic. We have superb writers/thinkers on this blog, and many of them don’t agree with you on this topic. Because you are a person who actually considers what others have to say, it makes your own arguments stronger and authentic. He tried every cheap debating tactic in the book, red herrings, straw men, personal attacks– you handeled them all with aplomb. You totally smoked Fried!
Thank you, Mr. Turley, for giving a mainstream voice to this imperative issue. Just a note to point out that this type of crime does not just go away. A quick look at any country who has been a victim of a regime that tortured and killed people (well-documented cases this side of the world include Argentina, Chile, Spain, Perú, Guatemala…) has continued to pay the price for generations to come, especially if these crimes have been covered up, ignored or pardoned by decree. Horror comes back to haunt the people; it is a moral wound that injures every aspect of society. The Bush-Cheney administration has left a worse footprint that what is right now apparent: it has twisted our ethics and the way we interpret reality and eroded our common sense. At least one generation will carry this damaging -and dangerous- trait. Hopefully, the new administration will enable some kind of healing by prosecuting and convicting these rulers of terror. It is baffling that it is even debated whether to press charges against them. Almost as baffling as the fact that the People let them finish an 8-year regime untouched.
Mike:
That was a logic tour de force with a sprinkling of troll vernacular. Bravo.