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
Obama officials, Senate intelligence panel spar over deletions from torture report
By Jonathan S. Landay and Michael Doyle
McClatchy Washington Bureau
August 4, 2014
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/04/235402/obama-officials-senate-intelligence.html
“President Obama’s despicable whitewashing of torture”
“His even-handed shtick wears very badly applied to absolute evil”
By Ryan Cooper | 6:13am ET
http://theweek.com/article/index/265780/president-obamas-despicable-whitewashing-of-torture
Out of the horror of World War II came one of the great achievements in all of human history: the Geneva Convention of 1949. It was a statement from humanity to itself that, in the aftermath of the bloodiest war in history, some decency might still be rescued. Despite the millions of senseless dead, despite all the mass murder and genocide and terror bombing, despite all the filth and hypocrisy and witless incompetence, the Convention states these things shall be held inviolate in war:
Wounded and sick soldiers shall be treated humanely, and medical facilities shall be off-limits to attack.
The same shall be true of wounded, sick, or shipwrecked sailors, and humanitarian ships.
Prisoners of war shall be treated humanely.
Noncombatants shall be treated humanely.
In 1988, President Reagan signed into law a treaty adding another stipulation to the list:
Torture shall be absolutely forbidden.
Reagan was no saint. His foreign policy caused tens of thousands of pointless deaths in Nicaragua alone. But he worked hard to get this treaty passed, and it is to my mind his greatest achievement. It added a bright star to the narrative of human progress.
During a press conference last Friday, President Obama confirmed that the United States has officially thrown that star into the dirt and stamped on it repeatedly, for reasons of incompetence and cowardice.
Said Obama:
With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, 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 it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.
Let’s compare that to the text of the Convention Against Torture:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of President Obama (aside from his unflappable, even cadence) is the way he instinctively tries to understand and legitimize both sides of every debate. When well applied, as it was during his famous speech on race during the 2008 campaign, it adds needed nuance and complexity to difficult subjects.
Torture, on the other hand, is a simple subject that has little nuance or complexity. It is an absolute evil that has no place or function in a civilized, decent society. It is illegal under United States law. Only a complete idiot would try to use it to gather intelligence. Its only effective uses are thoroughly totalitarian: to intimidate, punish, and extract false confessions.
President Obama’s on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other shtick amounts to nothing but vile political cowardice when applied to torture. It’s also, unsurprisingly, grossly misleading. The Bush torture program was not some panicked misstep in the weeks after 9/11; it was a coordinated effort continued up through 2004 at least, and probably beyond.
And even if it weren’t, what a pathetic excuse 9/11 makes. There is no “unless you are really scared” carve-out in the Convention. 9/11 was a horrifying crime, no doubt, but it simply does not stand comparison even with our Civil War, let alone history’s worst events like the Battle of Stalingrad. A terrorist attack does not justify shredding the most sacred touchstones of liberal democracy and taking up techniques pioneered by the Gestapo.
All this makes that word “sanctimonious” absolutely infuriating. These “patriots” did not have “tough jobs,” Mr. President; they committed war crimes on orders from practically the entire top echelon of the previous presidential administration. They violated the United States Constitution, grievously harmed the security of the nation, and pillaged the best, most unambiguously good part of the legacy of President Reagan. (War crimes, I might add, which were pitifully, ridiculously ineffective at obtaining anything whatsoever of positive value.)
But since his administration has refused to prosecute those war crimes, it seems clear that Obama has been made thoroughly complicit in them. Earlier in the press conference Obama reiterated that he has “full confidence” in CIA director John Brennan, who is in hot water for spying on his Senate overseers (another outrageous crime) as they worked on a scathing report about the CIA’s torture program. Until there is a serious reckoning, I suspect the evil of torture will similarly taint all future presidents.
anonymous – The Geneva Convention deals with soldiers and it has been held that terrorists are not soldiers as described in the Geneva Convention. The terrorists have not signed the Geneva Convention.
http://www.meforum.org/651/does-human-rights-law-apply-to-terrorists
Eric, very well-stated reply. I’ll see if I am up to the task…
I refute your claim that Presidential authority goes beyond the physical boundaries of the United States. I am sure the rest of the world would concur in that statement. This is the neoconservative ideal spelled out. It’s good to see it this way, because it makes its folly very clear.
This point of view of the US solely dictating terms that the rest of the world will follow is an argument in a bell jar (that happens to be inside I-495) set within in a larger reality. It belies reality. It is reflective of DC hegemonial and hubris-laden ideals. Once again, it is out of touch with reality in the most fundamental of senses. For Nietzsche fans, we have killed God, and the neocons think God is now them.
As stated previously, it is a profound error to equate the solution with a western culture, such as Germany, to the islamic states of the middle east. Most Americans are of German descent. Germany bears no resemblance to any of the Islamic countries today. Plus, there was the added timely dynamic of the new cold war that engulfed the continent again at the conclusion of WWII. A strong Germany helped protect surviving Germans as well as the rest of the world, and helped create the deadly balance of mutually assured destruction.
Also, you keep pointing out where to stay the course. We have never won a peace outside of Germany at the end of WWII. You can take credit for a peaceful Germany all you want, but the new-found strategy served the West (except for France, who on several occasions when asked where their nuclear arsenal was pointed, it was “in all directions.”). Your conclusions are drawn with very sketchy references.
A recent example of failure to win the peace. When the Soviet Union collapsed (as then super-smart guy Robert Gates admitted they didn’t know it was coming, but watched on CNN) and Gorbachev said it was done and was going home, once again, we said we would as well–and we never did. We didn’t forge our swords into plowshares—we continued the war and took it right to the border of Russia. Now we have backed them into a corner and try to dare them to make a move. More example of neoconservative hegemony that serves no one.
There is a separate, but important article to consider, and that would be, where is the source of moral authority that a group of individuals who feel they have the right to spread death and destruction as the tools of change, but also the moral authority of taking the wealth from a population to do this deed.
New post today from the Professor. We have a mountain of debt. We can’t afford nation-building. We’ll become yet another empire that has collapsed from the inside.
Hate to you Wikipedia, but it offers some George Washington perspective. From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address
Washington goes on to urge the American people to take advantage of their isolated position in the world, and avoid attachments and entanglements in foreign affairs, especially those of Europe, which he argues have little or nothing to do with the interests of America. He argues that it makes no sense for the American people to wage war on European soil when their isolated position and unity will allow them to remain neutral and focus on their own affairs. As a result, Washington argues that the country should avoid permanent alliance with all foreign nations, although temporary alliances during times of extreme danger may be necessary, but does say that current treaties should be honored although not extended.
The cold war ended in 1990, it was time to end NATO. Let the people who live in the middle east sort it out for themselves, as we did here in the 1860s. I am not for isolation. I am for trading and making money from the whole world for the betterment of the citizens of the United States. Seems to work pretty well for Germany these days.
I must be kissing your poit Pul. (I cant find the page I had opened earlier that listed which presidents had bipartisan picks although no repub has ever had dem sect of defense as with Hagel
leejcaroll – this is what I was responding to.
schulte: it’s not how many that matters most, it’s where they sit in cabinet that counts. Bush had Democrat heading up Transportation, Obama had Gates, a Republican in charge of Defense. Moreover, his Treasury picks have been DINOs.
Paul, probably a typo you wrote (?) but I would hope every repub pres had more repubs in their cabinet then Pres Obama
Paul Schulte:
There may be grumbling, but Obama supporters will flock to Hillary Clinton if there do not appear to be any viable (i.e., electable) alternatives. I twice voted for the President, but I am considerably to the left of Ms. Clinton, and I expect that gap to widen if she becomes the Democratic nominee.
Mike – it appears that Obama is supporting anyone but Hillary. Supposedly she played the game and went in his cabinet for his supporting her for President. As usual he is not (if the sorry is true) fulfilling his end of the bargain. So far he has put forward Michelle and Joe Biden as possibles.
Many of Obama supporters came late to him after Ms. Clinton lost the primary and are happy to be for her (absent who knows what happening, her not running, for instance)
leejcaroll – I would agree that the original Hillary supporter will stick with her, but it will make it hard for original Obama supporters to move to her because they had to buy into the attacks of Obama on Clinton.
True Nick. (The reason I wrote that was because he has certainly included “rivals” in his cabinet.
leej, Not true, although Obama did not lie when he said that. At that point Sen. Gregg was touted as being in the Cabinet but he withdrew.
Obama had more repubs his cabinet then any other president.
leejcaroll – I think every Republican President had more Republicans in his cabinet than Obama.
Nick Spinelli: “Now, he would settle for the next Carter”
Check out http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/barack-carter-article-1.1847138
Before Obama, GOP or Dems POTUS, we assumed a normal range of US foreign policy with standard premises about US interests and approach. Even if you looked harshly on President Carter’s record, you at least acknowledged that Carter acted within the normal range, wherever he fell on it, and upheld the standard premises about US interests and approach. Obama has not.
Paul, I find that whole concept of team of rivals as offensive. Didn’t he belittle Clinton for her foreign policy credentials in the primaries, and then he chose her for SOS? When asked about that he ridiculed the journalist for having believed his words. If I was his voter and I had not supported clinton for some reason and then I heard him say that to the journalist, that would have been the end of my support for him, as that shows a character problem, doesn’t it?
I want to see independent thinkers with similar goals, not a team of rivals, that is insane to think that is the way to govern, just like it is insane to have just the people who will worship you, no matter what
Observer – there is some thought in Democratic circles that supporters of Obama cannot go for Hillary.
@prairie rose
Loved the Antigone excerpt! Oh my but we all need more of that!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And, although ashamed, I am honest enough to admit that @ that point in his tenure, when Obama was putting together his cabinet, I was hopeful that he would put together a team of rivals. I got hoodwinked.
Paul, Obama did indeed say that. It was all part of the narrative that he was the next Lincoln. Now, he would settle for the next Carter,
Paul C. Schulte, John Oliver,
The short answer is WW2.
However, while WW2 is the inflection point for the modern era of American leadership of the free world, even that’s an inadequate place to start. Why was the US involved by the Axis and Allies in their battle royal in the 1st place?
The US has been stretched out on the international scene for a long time, way before we became the leader of the free world by co-winning WW2. As conspiracy theorists and political scientists both know, war isn’t just war. War is in the context of everything else.
Eric – FDR got us into WWII whether we wanted to or not. He wanted it and he lied about it.
LOL! This President gathered a team of W/M Yes Men. Lincoln had a team of rivals.
Nick – wasn’t it a meme of Obama’s when he was elected that he was reading Team of Rivals and wanted to put together a cabinet like that? And then it all went to hell in a handbag.
Prairie Rose, Brava! I seek out people w/ whom I disagree and read and watch all types of news. I don’t want to discuss issues in an echo chamber. That would be hell for me, heaven for too many. Where you been?