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
John Oliver: “This worked to a large extent after WWII because we were returning cultures to a pre-existing state.”
Arguably the European piece, not the Asian piece. Liberal reform shouldn’t have worked for Asian countries like Japan and especially Korea according to their history and culture.
John Oliver,
One of my memorable experiences as a freshly minted private in the mid 1990s was listening to my NCOs, Desert Storm veterans, share their war stories during downtime in the field. The takeaway, besides the need to improvise-and-adapt, was their warning that our going back to Iraq was “when, not if” because the disarmament had failed and Saddam was doing bad things in open defiance of the ceasefire.
John Oliver: “What do we do with post-Saddam Iraq? We become resource independent, we reestablish the capability to defend ourselves against any threat, we rebuild trust with our allies.”
That’s an evasion, not a solution.
The Iraq enforcement was originally intended to be a rapid 1-2 year procedure to keep a rehabilitated Saddam in charge, but that failed. The Iraq enforcement progressed, exhausting every non-military and lesser military enforcement measure, until bombing Iraq and the credible threat of regime change also failed. Finally, the enforcement culminated in completion of the suspended Gulf War.
Situation: The US-led coalition is now occupying Iraq with the ethical responsibility and UN mandate to secure and stabilize Iraq for the post-Saddam transition.
You’re the President in 2003. What do you do with Iraq at that point?
Are you saying the US should have dropped our own modern heritage as leader of the free world, precipitously withdrawn from Iraq after we ousted Saddam (except perhaps for whatever the Iraq Survey Group and UNMOVIC needed to finish their work), and whatever happens to Iraq happens with whatever compounding harms?
Consider this possibility when “we rebuild trust with our allies”: What went wrong over the course of the 1991-2003 Iraq enforcement was less the US, the dutiful chief enforcer, than our rivals and putative (non-Anglo) allies who pursued self-interests viz the Iraq situation, which of course informed Saddam’s (mis)calculations.
Prairie Rose, thank you.
Eric,
“The answer is the same thing we did following the WW2 regime changes: secure and build the peace.”
I grew up in the Cold War era and joined the Navy in 1979 (retired in 1999). I was in the Gulf in 1990 and my ship refueled in Kuwait the day before Iraq attacked. My naiveté regarding bad actors throughout the world was in believing all the citizens needed was liberation from the tyranny and then freedom and democracy would follow. This worked to a large extent after WWII because we were returning cultures to a pre-existing state. This strategy doesn’t work when a culture is not familiar with the brand of democracy you are willing to provide. A “hearts and minds” strategy is to “reestablish” trust towards a peace and freedom that previously existed. It will not work in a culture that has generations of distrust towards the western culture.
What do we do with post-Saddam Iraq? We become resource independent, we reestablish the capability to defend ourselves against any threat, we rebuild trust with our allies.
John Oliver,
To set the record straight, the purpose of the Iraq enforcement was not a liberalizing regime change. The purpose was Iraq’s compliance with the Gulf War ceasefire.
Iraq’s compliance with the UNSC resolutions was necessary to assure Saddam could be trusted with the peace after the Iran-Iraq War, brutal Kuwait occupation, and Gulf War. If Saddam failed to comply, then he could not be trusted with the peace and Iraq’s compliance would be brought about with the completion of the suspended Gulf War.
We wanted Saddam to stay, but we needed a compliant and therefore rehabilitated Saddam. From 1991 to 2003, we tried our best to rehabilitate Saddam until finally, with Operation Desert Fox in 1998, Clinton pronounced, “Iraq has abused its final chance.” After that, we had only 3 options left with Iraq: kick the can on the stalemated, toxic, and broken failed-disarmament-called-‘containment’ (status quo); surrender the Iraq enforcement and free a noncompliant Saddam (out of the question); or bring about Iraq’s compliance with the last remaining enforcement measure – credible threat of regime change (resolution).
Despite Clinton’s pronouncement, Bush gave Saddam a 2nd final chance to comply with the UNSC resolutions in 2002. In Spring 2003, Saddam refused his “final opportunity” (UNSCR 1441) and Iraq’s compliance was brought about with regime change. So, what do we do then with post-Saddam Iraq?
The answer is the same thing we did following the WW2 regime changes: secure and build the peace.
Prairie Rose I think people feel there is nothing we can do about it. It all comes down to money, and with McCutcheon and Citizens United the individual is even further squeezed out. (Not sure it is apathy, although there is a lot of that, the turnout shows too many don’t care, or are turned off by the process as much as a feeling of helplessness.)
Money backs the candidates and they have to do whatever they can to continue getting the money and try to ‘kill’ their opponents.
I think the electorate understands this and at the end of the day put their hands up, say well that is always the way it is in the primaries, and go on their way to picking one of the 2 left standing.
leejcaroll,
“Sadly, Prairie rose that is how politics works. You say whatever about your opponent in the primaries and then it is a lovefest among them all as they support the winner, no matter how abhorrent, supposedly, his (her) policies positions were”
Yes, this is unfortunately quite accurate. Says a lot about the character of most of our politicians (and, dear me, about us if we participate in the lovefest!). Not only that but it makes anything about the government seem extremely disingenuous.
Do you think a majority of Americans want this sort of behavior to change, a majority of people are oblivious and participate themselves, or a majority are resigned that this is just how politics works and are apathetic that it will ever change?
(Or, all of the above, depending on the weather.) 🙂
Sadly, Prairie rose that is how politics works. You say whatever about your opponent in the primaries and then it is a lovefest among them all as they support the winner, no matter how abhorrent, supposedly, his (her) policies positions were
John Oliver,
“The demand for freedom and the security of unalienable rights must be internalized by the society itself; it cannot be thrust upon them by a “well-intentioned” foreign policy.”
Well said.
Observer,
I know you directed your comment to Paul, but I wanted to chime in.
“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?”
Excellent observation about a character issue.
“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.”
Good point. Rivals are going to make the issues about themselves and discussions will devolve into partisan bickering and undermining, whereas your view allows for inter-party disagreement without things easily becoming disagreeable. Team of rivals does sound a bit like an oxymoron.
Observer,
“I’m not suggesting that someone should not be here”
Thank goodness! 🙂 I greatly misunderstood you. Sorry about that.
“I have the option to skip whose comment to skip and whose not to”
Of course.
“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”.”
An understandable position.
Nick,
“Where you been?”
Herding cats (my kids), visiting family and friends, and trying to stay ahead of the weeds in my gardens and getting food “put up”.
Observer,
“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 ,”
Thank you for clarifying. I was not in the least surprised that someone disagreed with me, just that no reason was given. Saying you disagreed “on so many levels” is ripe with interesting details left unsaid. I cannot learn from opposing views if reasons for the opposition aren’t given–and I want to learn and understand.
Your original reply seemed to indicate that you didn’t think SWM should stay, which was why I replied as I did (the topic of my comment to her was about reasons I’d like her to stay). I’m glad I misunderstood your reason for disagreeing (didn’t have much to go on, though).
To be clear, I never said that people shouldn’t be able to make judgments. Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I was trying to convey to SWM that I’m glad she posts here and want her to continue.
“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”
If you know of a book that does so, I’d gladly take the recommendation. 🙂
I don’t have that much of a problem with torture. However, I have a huge problem with denying and hiding it. If we are doing it, then we need to justify it, and if we can justify it, we have no reason to hide it. Then there is the issue of letting others do it for us so we can pretend we aren’t involved. Under respondeat superior, shipping our torture candidates off to a friendly dictatorship to pull teeth for us really isn’t any different than doing it directly, just as shipping folks off to Guantanamo is not really any different than shipping them to the mainland as far as responsibility goes, law be damned.
“I think the state of nature for interactive diverse humanity is neither stable nor peaceful.”
I absolutely agree and I believe a fundamental miscalculation we make in foreign policy is to believe American democracy is exportable. Our pre-1776 history created a culture that was primed for independence and democratic self-government. This was our first “fundamental transformation” and it wasn’t achieved in 6 years or 60 years; more like 150 years. We have an extraordinary history that is no longer taught to our own citizens and if we can’t teach it here then we certainly can’t export it.
The demand for freedom and the security of unalienable rights must be internalized by the society itself; it cannot be thrust upon them by a “well-intentioned” foreign policy. All the proof you need of this is to look at the transformation of our own culture over the last 100 years. That pre-Declaration history is not prominent in our childhood education and as a result, we have a society largely ignorant of our government’s chartered purpose. It has now become politically fashionable to weaponize government and the security of one’s “rights” is one election away from being lost. Even American democracy is no longer American; at least as it was originally intended.
slohrss29,
The contest is EU v Russia, not US v Russia, and Germany is EU. The US is helping the EU. From what I gather, trade is part of the conflict in that Russia is opposed to the EU pulling Eastern Europe away from Russia’s orbit and into the EU’s social economic orbit.
The difference between us and the British Empire is that we’re not an empire. Since WW2, we’ve been a hegemon of a world order. The difference is why, if you’re not looking with the right lens, it looks like the US is less important than we are. Our leadership has been about the setting, empowering a necessary community condition and enforcing community rule sets – ie, defining the peace on our terms – rather than expanding franchise ownership.
That has its pros and cons. Pro is that we don’t have to carry the burden of empire. Con is that we carry the burden of enforcement.
I get why some people want to share the burden of enforcement with a multipolar world. I understand that others take it a step further and believe that if the US would stop meddling altogether, the world would sort itself out and find a naturally stable, peaceful balance. I don’t think so. I think the state of nature for interactive diverse humanity is neither stable nor peaceful. I think the Taliban and the World Wars are representative of the world’s nature and that’s where the alternative leads if we let go.
anonymous: “Only a complete idiot would try to use [torture] to gather intelligence. Its only effective uses are thoroughly totalitarian: to intimidate, punish, and extract false confessions.”
That’s why they used enhanced interrogation with (not in place of) conventional interrogation rather than torture.
I doubt that our interrogators who were at minimum trained professionals and likely included experts, and tasked with a grave responsibility, were “complete idiot[s]” who opted to use methods that don’t work for an urgent time-sensitive task.
Eric,
First off, I have to commend you on your superbly worded response. I would only hope I could get my thoughts out as tidy. It is a pleasure to read.
I agree with you on neoconservatism being a new name for a Wilsonian liberal. I think you did a great job pointing out the heart of the philosophical disconnect that makes the Obama foreign policy such a shambles. I feel both W and Obama share a Wilhelm III self-possessed idealism that they don’t know how–or what to do with it. Yes, Obama says “disengage,” yet he keeps poking at situations all the time. Plus, we know Nixon went to China (pardon me while I push back here, need to applaud some of Nixon’s high points). Obama wouldn’t even talk with Putin at the G7. This is cowardly. If we have the high ground as claimed, why don’t we talk to Putin? We talked to Soviet premiers after they bulldozed people in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. That isn’t going to happen because that isn’t the plan. So, on top of Obama’s conflicting ideals and actions, we have parts of government–the deep state, I guess–that seems to be carrying out its own agenda. Apparently we have a “left-hand, right-hand disconnect on our foreign policy, with the “Wilsonian” NED (the Arab Spring and color revolutions) and State Department (Victoria Nuland’s famous “I ‘heart’ the EU”) exporting liberal regime change all around the planet, Obama poking a drone in here and there, and leaving the whole stinking sack of policy to someone else to clean up.
I have to disagree on Germany and Russia. Russia is a huge market for German goods. And I have read that Germany sells more goods to that part of the world than the United States. I have also read where they are getting tired of our “big stick” diplomacy. Also saw a couple of photos of Merkel looking quite relaxed with Putin at the World Cup.
Also, I feel the Arab Islamic countries have to have their 30 Years War. I guess we could do the Suleiman thing, but I think that would not work out as well as it did in the 16th century.
If it were the 50s again, I would have to agree that we would be the benevolent alpha of the pack. We have lost so much since then, and I don’t think the people running the table have a clue as to the depth of effort it would take to get that respect back. Also, I don’t know if we actually have the money to get that respect back. Feels like we’re more on the road to becoming Not so Great Britain.
President Obama’s Whitewashed History of U.S. Torture
The Bush administration’s interrogation policy cannot be written off as a panicked aberration that ended in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
Conor Friedersdorf Aug 4 2014
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/president-obamas-whitewashed-history-of-us-torture/375509/
“Despite the danger of torture being used again in the near future, Obama is using rhetoric and drawing on the credibility he gained by opposing torture to present what the Bush administration did in more flattering terms than reality justifies, even as he continues letting the CIA repress much of the Senate torture report. When elected, he promised hope and change, not equivocation and whitewashing.”
slohrss29,
A neoconservative is essentially a Wilsonian liberal in the Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy lineage, relabeled.
That’s a reason for the incoherence of President Obama’s foreign policy. In the partisan contest, Democrats have relied on the false narrative against Operation Iraqi Freedom to seize political advantage, especially with Obama’s presidential election in 2008. Yet the truth is OIF was right on the law, justified on the policy, and defined by essentially liberal principles.
That might have worked out okay for us if the Democrats, while vilifying President Bush, also rejected Bush’s essential liberalism, as you do. Except they haven’t.
The Democrats and Obama have continued to claim the traditional liberal goals they share with Bush. In the partisan arena, the Democrats have turned the trick on their fundamental contradiction by rhetorically relabeling Bush’s post-9/11 liberal foreign policy as neocon, said pejoratively (liberal:neocon :: studious:nerd).
However, in the real world, abjuring Bush’s practical means to achieve the liberal goals has rendered American leadership a feckless failure. At the same time, Obama’s continuing claim of the liberal goals while advantaging the Islamists versus the region’s liberals has made America leadership a betraying liar. “Disengagement” is used a lot to describe Obama’s foreign policy, but that’s incorrect. Obama has engaged plenty, just not in progressive, constructive ways.
I agree we did good work with Germany. Of course, Germany isn’t the whole post-WW2 story of American leadership.
I served in Korea (after the war, of course). For a long time, post-Japan Korea was thought to be highly unlikely to succeed, more than post-Saddam Iraq, for historical, economic, political, cultural (pretty much all the social) reasons. Plus we screwed up a lot, and badly, with Korea after taking over stewardship from Japan. At the 8-year mark, where we left Iraq, the progress of 2011 Iraq was far ahead of 1953 Korea. The rise of Iraq with US presence in a relatively short period, despite difficult circumstances during that period, compared to the subsequent fall of Iraq due to the premature removal of US presence is instructive both on Iraq’s potential and the need for a long constant US presence to realize that potential. Like the West, East Germany comparison with a long constant US presence, comparing the development of southern Korea with a long constant US presence to the development of northern Korea without US presence is instructive of the bottom-line necessity for a long constant US presence with Iraq.
I’m undecided on the merits of the current US intervention with Russia, which also has roots with Clinton. That said, your cite of Russia highlights one of the themes in my responses to Endeavor: The basic nature of the geopolitical arena is competition.
Indeed, Germany is competing with Russia and looking to the US as a partner in their regional contest.
Russia shedding the USSR and saying that ought to make the US and NATO go away doesn’t mean Russia shed its competitive interests. When Russia opposed the US on Iraq going back to Clinton’s Iraq enforcement, it did so out of self-interest. From our point of view, our reasons to enforce with Iraq were anchored in US national interests going back to at least the Carter administration. For the Russians, the underlying premises of the US intervention with Iraq were the same for US intervention in Russia’s claimed sphere of influence. Russia tied together the US-led Balkans intervention and the US-led Iraq enforcement. For Russia, stigmatizing the US on Iraq was about impeding the US on Russia.
Like I said, American leadership of the free world is weight-bearing and standard-bearing. Like I said to Professor Turley, America has a pragmatic tradition and an idealistic tradition. Whether it’s about us “trading and making money from the whole world” or about Professor Turley’s desire for US ethical leadership for the whole world, American effectiveness achieving our global goals requires a practical foundation of security, stability, and the dominance necessary to define the peace on our terms.
Can we achieve our global goals in the essentially competitive geopolitical arena while lacking the practical control of alpha of the pack? I doubt it, but I’m open to considering alternatives that might work for us practically.
http://aattp.org/liz-cheney-americans-who-tortured-detainees-are-heroes-and-patriots/ “The segment, entitled Enhanced Interrogation, featured Crowley asking the former Wyoming U.S. Senate candidate about Obama’s remarks from earlier in the week, when he admitted that “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.”
This got Cheney fired up:
“You know Monica, this president is an utter disgrace. He’s got a situation where, as your last two reports showed, you’ve got crises erupting around the world. And he is expending more time, more energy, more passion, more aggressive activity in targeting and going after patriots, heroes. CIA officers and others who kept is safe after 9/11. He’s lying about what they did, he’s slandering them, he went to Cairo and did it in 2009.”
She added, “Today he did it from the podium of the Oval Office. It’s a disgrace. It’s despicable.”
It’s so nice to see that the Cheney didn’t fall far from the (prison camp) fence.
Contrary to Cheney’s comments, Obama’s administration hasn’t been pursuing legal prosecution against anyone associated with the interrogation program. But why let the truth get in the way of a good lie?
SWM – Cheney is right. Obama is slandering them. Slandering does not mean pursuing legal prosecution against them.