Following the admission that the CIA hacked Senate computers and lied to Congress, President Obama today affirmed that it did indeed torture people. This admission (while belated) is an important recognition by the United States of what is obvious from a legal standpoint. However, that also means that CIA officials violated both federal and international law. The question is why Obama began his first term by promising CIA employees that they would not be tried for what he now describes as “tortur[ing] some folks.”
Despite the prior lying to Congress, Obama insisted that he had “full confidence in John Brennan.” As noted before, the Obama Administration is clearly unwilling again to discipline, let alone charged, any CIA personnel for hacking into congressional computers.
The President then turned to the Senate report on our torture program and affirmed his earlier 2009 statement that this was torture — plain and simple:
Even before I came into office, I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the twin towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And, you know, it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that’s what that report reflects.
Just a few points are warranted here.
First, torture is a war crime and the United States has insisted that it was at war. We have an obligation to investigate and prosecute any officials responsible for torture. Instead, both the Bush and Obama Administrations threatened countries like Spain and England for even investigating aspects of these crimes. Saying that we “tortured some folks” is not compliance with these law – either domestic or international
Second, it does not matter if we are “afraid” or angry under international law. These treaties clearly reject defenses like “just following orders” or justified torture.
Third, Obama has yet to explain his promise to the CIA employees after taking office. After his election, various high officials said that Obama told them privately that no Bush or CIA officials would be prosecuted. His staff denied the stories but he then soon thereafter told the CIA staff precisely that.
Finally, not only has the United States refused to hold our own officials to the same standards that we impose on other countries, but those responsible for our torture program are giving interviews and writing books in plain sight. In the meantime, the Administration has successfully blocked torture victims from seeking judicial review or relief in our courts.
That record makes the admission that “we tortured some folks” a bit less satisfying. No one familiar with the cases in this area should seriously doubt that we tortured people. What remains unclear is how we can justify not prosecuting those responsible. We may have “tortured some folks” but we never “prosecuted other folks.”
Source: ABC
Rose,
By the way , I’m not suggesting that someone should not be here , I’m just disagreeing with the basic premise of your comment . I have the option to skip whose comment to skip and whose not to . Best predictor of the future behavior is said to be the past behavior , and with that in mind I can use my time more productively , even when there are comments from someone whose main thrust is ” if it were not for the republicans it would have been heaven”.
slohrss29, also see my comment to you upthread at August 2, 2014 at 10:18 pm.
Roses , I just disagree with you , that we should never make a judgment after seeing broken record and predictable messages one after another from someone . It is interesting to see that you are surprised that someone disagrees with your comment , that in your opinion , it appears, is oozing with wisdom . In my opinion even the totally useless things in life can have some value but that does not mean that we have to forget the bigger picture and think that the comparatively more important things are so few that we can still waste time on reading the comparatively useless opinions. Now you will say that what is useless to me may not be useless to you , true , but I never said that WE disagree with you , I said ‘I’ disagree with you . I’m sure you feel the same way about my right to disagree with you. Let me throw in another opinion of mine , I think the “team of rivals” concept that some bragged about re. this president’s administration , is so problematic and based on a misunderstanding of so many basic things that it will require a book to explain .
slohrss29,
The US as the standard-bearing, weight-bearing leader of the free world isn’t only a “right-wing” American identity. It’s the defining liberal American identity of the modern era. Bush reacted to 9/11 by adopting a paradigmatically liberal American foreign policy.
To wit, President Kennedy’s oath (1961): “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
To wit, President Clinton’s counsel, specifically regarding the US-led enforcement with Iraq (1998): “In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past — but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.”
To wit, President Bush’s pledge (2001): “As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.”
Liberal reform is more than simple majority-vote democracy, which is why nation-building peace operations require such a long dedicated process. The Arab Spring was where the hard-earned preparation by the leader of the free world met pivotal opportunity – precisely the kind of historic moment Clinton had envisioned as a “remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past.”
Obama should have stayed the course from Bush like Eisenhower stayed the course from Truman. Armed with Iraq the Model, the Bush Freedom Agenda, and his own transformational reputation, Obama was set up to become the all-time great American President who changed the course of history.
Instead, the degenerating state of affairs you describe has been caused by Obama’s deviation from the course he inherited from Bush.
Obama ostensibly retained Bush’s liberal goals, but Obama lost the necessary means to achieve those goals when he dropped the Bush Freedom Agenda and abandoned Iraq, which had been set to be a keystone regional strategic partner. Obama disastrously adopted a feckless ‘lead from behind’ approach to the Arab Spring where the opposite – sure-handed American leadership – was needed.
The progressive liberal continuity from Clinton to Bush was broken between Bush and Obama. Presented with the “remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past”, Obama instead, incredibly, applied American power in ways that could have been purposely designed to undermine liberal reform and empower illiberal forces.
For example, from http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-question-for-romney-and-obama-about.html :
Paul,
If a nation poses no national security threat to the United States, what is our justification for involvement in their internal politics?
John Oliver – with the amount we spend on foreign aid, there is almost no country that is not important to us. It does not have to be for national defense purposes for us to intervene or get someone else to intervene.
That’s a good point, but the problem is where do you find impartial “ballot box stuffers” who don’t want to further an agenda. We keep assuming somehow, somewhere there is a fail-safe human solution to these dilemmas, and there is none.
Very well-worded reply Eric. I would have to counter your argument is based on the premise that the US is the supreme source of world authority. I think is a common error for most right-wing folk. Once the leap of faith card that we are the ultimate world order enters into the discussion, it reduces the argument for the simplistic Bush-era continuity. You could also draw a strong conclusion that Bush-era policy has failed in every other middle-eastern, north African Islamic enclave. Democracy gave those people just what they wanted, the ability to vote in an religious-autocratic government. And who are we to say that is wrong?–we only say that because we lose the ability force those people to do our bidding. They have to figure it out for themselves from here. We had to do it here after much blood-letting and soul-searching, while telling the British to stay out of it.
slohrss29 – Some important (I cannot remember who) said that people deserve the government they elect. I would say it is not our job to dictate the outcome of freely held elections. However, if someone has been stuffing the ballot box then I think we or someone else can step in.
Prairie Rose: “I am with Jill on dissolving the whole red-state/blue-state concept, the Democrat/Republican concept and really look at what’s going on in our government.”
The shortcoming of partisan blinders is especially stark when it comes to the War on Terror. Saying that, however, I do place much of the blame on the Democrats for the partisan corruption of the discourse on those issues for this reason: Democrats are the most responsible for setting misleading artificial markers for the discourse at 9/11 and the Iraq regime change as the start points for those issues when in fact, those events actually marked the decade-plus-long trends of the al Qaeda problem and Saddam problem coming to a head.
Which is to say, Bush’s record dealing with al Qaeda and Saddam cannot be properly understood out of line from Clinton’s record dealing with those problems. Both problems matured during the Clinton administration and preoccupied Clinton’s whole presidency. Clinton set up the US policy approaches to both problems that Bush carried forward after 9/11.
The necessary critical context of the Clinton-Bush continuity with the War on Terror has been lost, however, in the partisan corruption of the discourse.
For example, when I explain the law and policy basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom to correct the prevalent false narrative, ie, that OIF was based on lies and illegal – such as I do upthread with slohrss29 at August 2, 2014 at 7:35 pm and jill at August 2, 2014 at 8:02 pm – I cite to Clinton for the most part. Clinton, not Bush, is the best source for understanding OIF. The only original part of Bush’s case against Saddam was the updated threat calculation from 9/11, which Clinton endorsed based on his still-fresh perspective from his Iraq enforcement. I find that Democrat partisans are flummoxed by the strong Clinton-Bush continuity on Iraq.
Another example is the topic of this post. The discourse usually emphasizes US unconventional counter-terrorism practices following 9/11. In fact, US unconventional counter-terrorism practices preceded 9/11 with Clinton’s efforts against the rising al Qaeda. 9/11 heightened the US counter-terror campaign, but it didn’t begin on 9/11.
I wonder whether Democrat partisans calling for the heads of Bush officials for the War on Terror realize that opening the door to prosecuting the Bush administration also opens the door to prosecuting the Clinton administration.
I think they would realize that if the discourse on the War on Terror was conducted in a proper bi-partisan context as a continuous course from Clinton to Bush.
“I am with Jill on dissolving the whole red-state/blue-state concept, the Democrat/Republican concept and really look at what’s going on in our government.”
Prairie Rose,
Excellent post! Discovering “what’s going on in our government” won’t be as challenging to civil discourse as defining “what SHOULD be going on in our government”. I’ve participated in some very hostile, partisan blogs and without exception; the one question that will clear a room is “how does that [issue] better secure the unalienable rights of ALL citizens?”
Observer, your statement is unequivocally opposed to what I wrote, yet it is unsupported and does not promote meaningful discussion. Why do you disagree with my statements?
I disagree with SWM on nearly everything but I’m glad she’s here, sharing her thoughts. I want an open, thoughtful, courteous, well-supported debate on the issues at hand–can’t have that if there aren’t opposing views! I can learn from opposing viewpoints, understand where others are coming from (rather than rely on the all-too-often straw men thrown about by pundits and politicians), refine my positions, or possibly even change my position, even if it’s but a minor change. I can hope that even people who have diametrically opposed perspectives may be open enough to do the same.
I am with Jill on dissolving the whole red-state/blue-state concept, the Democrat/Republican concept and really look at what’s going on in our government. Yes, people can be frustratingly entrenched in their ideas (on both sides of the aisle), but so what? If they are open to continuing the debate then all hope is not yet lost that there can be a meeting of minds. If not, then we are free to disagree and that’s okay, too. I have lost nothing.
From Antigone:
I beg you, do not be unchangeable:
Do not believe that you alone can be right.
The man who thinks that,
The man who maintains that only he has the power
To reason correctly, the gift to speak, the soul—
A man like that, when you know him, turns out empty.
It is not reason never to yield to reason!
So many folks just didn’t like it.
I totally disagree with Rose’s comment above at so many levels …
“Like you said before most of my friends are gone and the only remaining democratic women are Lee and Annie. I am sure they could use some support but probably that alone is not a sufficient reason to continue to post here and read your interpretations of the news cycle.”
SWM–
The sufficient reason for you to stay is that we, as Americans, need to meet and discuss over articles like this, even if the discussions get messy at times. If we fade into our comfort zones of discussing only with those with whom we agree, then our country is really lost. Your voice is important here, just as Elaine’s and Blouise’s perspectives are (and others). Seeing issues from only one side of a perspective limits understanding and I’d rather my understanding not be limited. And, it’s not just perspective. You have read things that I haven’t. When you share articles, you enhance everyone’s understanding.
While I don’t always agree with you, I enjoy hearing your perspective. There are non-Big D women (and probably men) here who value your input and participation.
The diversity represented in the discussions here does not happen much in real life over coffee, unfortunately. Let’s do the best we can. I’ll get my cup of tea. SWM, are you having tea, coffee, or caramels? 🙂
Endeavor,
Your emphasis on “evidence based approach”, which we know well in the legal field, implies that you haven’t understood our interrogators’ priority tasking in the wake of 9/11. Actionable intelligence and evidence are not the same thing.
That’s a separate issue from the utility of enhanced interrogation, but I’m skeptical of the premise that interrogators who were at minimum trained professionals, perhaps even experts, would deliberately choose ineffective methods for the great responsibility we gave to them in the wake of 9/11.
Again, my understanding is that conventional interrogation was not rejected but rather, exigency dictated that enhanced interrogation picked up where conventional interrogation failed. That doesn’t necessarily mean enhanced interrogation could be counted on to produce actionable intelligence or evidence where conventional interrogation had failed to do so, but rather that our interrogators were diligent in their duty to have done their best to counter the terrorists and thereby save lives – and not only American lives.
Do I know whether enhanced interrogation works? Again, I don’t know. But I do know that our counter-terrorism strategy following 9/11, which undoubtedly was imperfect, was nevertheless effective. Vilifying, even threatening to prosecute, men and women for doing a vital duty the best they could, and doing it effectively in the moment it mattered the most to us, is wrong.
Thanks Dredd for sharing the info on interrogation. I was asking for indisputable scientific data to support efficacy of torture , may be there is none . As someone who has done a lot of research on the workings of human mind ,for my professional and personal interests , I’m not surprised to see what you copied . In some undeveloped societies people strongly believe that exorcism works for mental illness , and no amount of evidence can convince them of the biopsychosocial basis of such illnesses . If we want to stay on top , we will need to stay away from scientifically untested conclusions .
Endeavor – what Dredd has offered us is old news as Hillary would say. When this information was operative, homosexuality was both illegal and a mental illness. And if you actually read the manual from the US Army, some of their techniques could easily be considered ‘enhanced interrogation.’ It really is a fascinating manual. I do hope since they made it available to the public that they have updated it.
Eric , I would like to remind you , that you have said that you do not know whether “enhanced interrogation” works . Anyway , may be in 100 years you will see things differently and you would not feel the need to say that others may be “deliberately ignorant”, or who knows I may see things your way or I may be calling others “deliberately ignorant” , but one thing I do know is that I will be dead by then. I have learned ,from my current growth/lack of it , is that the things that one finds annoying in others , e,g., verbal and non verbal arrogance of this president , can also be the things that we may have failed to become aware of within our own self , and because of that concern , I will hesitate to continue this exchange as I see it has a potential to deteriorate in a superego driven exchange and that is something I want to stay away from. It was interesting to see your responses.
Have a good day .
Just posted a comment re: Pres. Obama and torture in an earlier article on this site and reposting here:
A Kabul chief of the NDS (National Directorate of Security) whose nickname in Afghanistan is “Torturer in Chief” has been found living in a pink house near Los Angeles. Not unlike another man and former Kandahar governor who then became chief of the NDS, Asadullah Khalid, another torturer, these two were somehow given a safe home here since Pres. Obama ‘no torture campaign’.I am certain they aren’t the only ones. Both men were so brutal that even the US and allies in Afghanistan tried to get them demoted or simply thrown out of their positions. With men like those living freely in the US we just have to connect the dots: the USG can’t afford that those men can reveal direct US collusion in torture. If men like these are allowed to live here, Pres. Obama is making a mockery of his supposed ‘end torture’ campaign. Any new person elected to president most likely gets led straight to the offices of the CIA as soon as the swearing-in is done. That is where people make sure he knows who really is in charge. Link to the story of Haji Gulalai, living among us is as follows:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mystery
Els DL – presidental candidates are regularly briefed on intelligence. They get the same briefings as the current President (the ones this one blows off).
Oops. Fix: So the French chose to withdraw and surrender Algeria, similar in some ways to how America has chosen to surrender the Iraqi people to ISIS rather than pay the political
practiceprice of effective leadership.Endeavor: “using more evidence based approaches to get the correct information”
Context matters. Patient interrogation to build a solid court case and exigent interrogation to gather time-sensitive information to possibly prevent a terrorist attack on us or someone else impose fundamentally different considerations.
It’s not like our interrogators are ignorant about the pros and cons of enhanced interrogation, but it does often seem their critics are deliberately ignorant about the context of the interrogators’ task.
From what I gather, it wasn’t either/or. Conventional methods of interrogation familiar to typical law enforcement practice weren’t eschewed.Rather, the interrogations weren’t cut off when they reached the limit of conventional interrogation.
If we assume that enhanced interrogation was used to pick up where conventional interrogation failed, that goes to the difficulty of comparing and measuring the utility of enhanced interrogation versus conventional interrogation.
Correlation vs causation, right?
It’s like I say to people who see a correlation between US military presence and trouble spots in the world and conclude the US military is to blame for the trouble: If the problem wasn’t very difficult to begin with, then US soldiers wouldn’t have been sent to it. I assume if a terrorist wasn’t very hard to crack, then enhanced interrogation wouldn’t have been used on him.
I only have a lay person’s view of the subject that’s influenced by popular culture. For example, the movie Zero Dark Thirty implies that a piece of intel from enhanced interrogation got us a piece that combined with other pieces to get us bin Laden. That depiction is controversial and disputed. What is less disputed is the depiction in the movie Battle of Algiers where outright for-real torture by the French military was practically effective against the insurgency. However, the practice came with too high of a political price. So the French chose to withdraw and surrender Algeria, similar in some ways to how America has chosen to surrender the Iraqi people to ISIS rather than pay the political practice of effective leadership.
Paul C. Schulte
Dredd – waiting for you to use a reputable source for your definition of ‘folk.’ And yet another ad hominem attack from you. I am going to have to make a macro just for you.
=======================
Just use the one trick pony macro your handlers gave you and change the name.
That way we won’t know its you. (wink, wink)