UPDATED Torture Data: All or Nothing?

Truth Commissions are a joke. It's the one way for everyone involved to say they did something, and yet punish no one.

Ed's claim that it was Obama's can of worms to open is patently false. Obama was compelled by law to release the defunct OLC memos. The can of worms was opened by the people in Washington who designed and acquiesced to the torture regime.

As an old schooler who believes in the merits of accountability I agree with Chris. If this is bantered about until people get tired of it, and then dropped, the message will be that our national experiment in sadism was OK. The ramifications of that scenario will be obvious enough to anyone who isn't conscience deprived.

The can of worms was opened by the people in Washington who designed and acquiesced to the torture regime.

I think that is true, but the decision on how to handle it is Obama's. So far the strategy on how he wants to handle it is unclear. I think Morrissey's point is either let's look at the whole thing or not at all, while Obama seems to want to handle it more selectively. You could make a case for the selective approach, but inevitably that will beg charges of partisanship, favoritism and cover-ups.

My understanding is that Obama is NOT interested in a 9/11-style Truth Commission. Despite the poorly-written headline, which seems to negate what is said in the article, see below:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20090...

The idea of a 9/11-style commission appointed with the president's imprimatur was broadly discussed in the weeks leading up to the release of the memos, according to senior White House officials who participated in the discussions.

But the idea was quashed by Obama.

"His whole thing is: I banned all this," a senior White House official said. "This chapter is over. What we don't need now is to become a sort of feeding frenzy where we go back and re-litigate all this."

In the private discussions, Obama acknowledged that Congress might pursue such a course, aides said. But the president was clear: He did not want to put his stamp of approval on a commission.

Personally, I dont understand how we can "re-litigate" something that has never previously been litigated.

To all those people who cannot get off their moral high horses, I have a few questions

A. What in the world makes you think that only Bush/Cheney ordered these torture techniques and kept Congress in the dark ? from all the facts that we know including Hoekstra's statement, Congressional members pretty much knew what was going on.

B.Since Congressional members did not speak up about these techniques, does it make them silent accomplices to these crimes ? If so, what should be the punishment ?

C. Why is it that only the lawyers be held responsible for this ? Didnt the CIA already know that they were borderline torturing and just wanted legal opinion so that they could cover their backs ? And if only the lawyers are to be prosecuted ,where does that leave Bush and Cheney and co ?

It is pretty clear that the administration did not want its hands tied by existing laws given the threat perceptions after 9/11 and was ready to do pretty much anything to stop another attack - it had its lawyers come up with opinions that basically approved these torture techniques.

The lawyers obliged by saying that since Al Qaeda was not a nation state but a terrorist group it should not be afforded the status of Geneva Convention POWs. If the US wanted to afford it, it would be doing a generous act. But it did not have any obligation to treat these guys with the same rules as other conventional war prisioners.

After all the key to Geneva conventions is the whole concept of reciprocity - nations did not sign on to this to declare their great moral values, but to make sure that their soldiers would be treated decently if they were ever caught behind enemy lines. With Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists, the whole nation of reciprocity is a laughable joke and an insult to any ones intelligence.

During a time of uncertainty, the Bush Administration dropped its kid gloves and went to extreme lengths to prevent another attack like 9/11 - it is easy to be an arm chair moralist and condemn their actions in hind sight.

What is needed now is leadership - not finger pointing and political witchunting - Obama, if he is truly serious about these crimes, needs to prosecute not just the lawyers, but those people who ordered it and condoned it and those people who knew about it and kept silent.

This would mean prosecuting Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and a whole host of people in addition to Congress members who knew about these techniques and kept quiet .

But instead he wants to have the cake and eat it too - this is nothing more than a cheap political stunt that throws some bones to the dogs on the left who are so consumed by their idea of seeing Bush and Co in jail... if this was nothing more than just a question of respect for the law there would be more people who will be in jail.

Instead we get a game of tamasha that is the worst of both worlds - does not punish the criminals but tries to gain political mileage out of it.

Why does not Obama just come out and say that all future terrorists who are captured any where in the battle field will be afforded Geneva Conventions protections and access to habeas corpus in a US court ?

Quit this charade already.

What in the world makes you think that only Bush/Cheney ordered these torture techniques and kept Congress in the dark ?

What makes you think we want to shield Congress from investigations and prosecution? If Democratic or Republican Congress members had a hand in this, designing it or approving it, then they should face the legal consequences.

Obama's NID told to "change your opinion fast or find other work".......

From the NYT, of all places:

WASHINGTON – President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

I'm not sure if this is on topic or not, but....

A few low-level, blue collar people, working against the stated policies of their institution, freelanced their own knuckleheaded torture chamber at the Abu-Ghraib Prison and got the book thrown at them.

But when a bunch of white collar people devise and execute an officially sanctioned, institutionalized policy of torture, the wagons are circled to protect them.

The more I think about this, the more it rankles.

A. What in the world makes you think that only Bush/Cheney ordered these torture techniques and kept Congress in the dark ? from all the facts that we know including Hoekstra's statement, Congressional members pretty much knew what was going on.

That's why we need to get to the truth

B.Since Congressional members did not speak up about these techniques, does it make them silent accomplices to these crimes ? If so, what should be the punishment ?

Let's get to the truth first

C. Why is it that only the lawyers be held responsible for this ? Didnt the CIA already know that they were borderline torturing and just wanted legal opinion so that they could cover their backs ? And if only the lawyers are to be prosecuted ,where does that leave Bush and Cheney and co ?

That's why we need to find the truth first, and then do what is right

I believe Pete raises an excellent point in his historical analogy:

"Second, I couldn’t help but wonder if, in rejecting a truth commission, Obama is experiencing some of what Gerald Ford experienced, when he decided to pardon Nixon. The rationale for both, it seems, is quite similar, anchored in an overarching concern that poking at national wounds will delay rather than advance the healing process."

I had not thought of this analogy...but after reading Pete's post, it seems an excellent one.

Will Obama pay a political price for this...especially among his own party...as Ford did?
I suspect today most people consider that Ford did the right thing, although at the time he was attacked for it.


DaGoat makes a good point about how Obama's policy seems to be selective.

It is also interesting how many Republicans want a fight on this issue. I wonder what goods they have on Pelosi's and the Democratic leadership's knowledge?


But Pete's analogy stands:
From his statements it seems President Obama wants to go the way of Ford and put this in the past.

Might this not be the correct course for the United States -- as per Ford -- despite the rancor of the moment?

Marlowe: "I wonder what goods they have on Pelosi's and the Democratic leadership's knowledge?"

Perhaps this is why we are now hearing that it is time to move on and look forward. If everything is released showing who knew what and when they knew it, we may just find that many of those arguing for prosecution of past officials deserve to be prosecuted themselves. Here's another WaPo article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

Why are the Dems so split over this?

D.E. Rodriguez makes a strong case for determing the "truth".

Which made me think of how Pete Abel...in a post the other day...referenced Biblical scripture on the torture debate.

Thus, I would ask, as Pilate famously asked Jesus at his trial: "What is truth?"

What is to be gained from this?


The fact that Cheney clearly wants a fight on this topic should give many Democrats and others pause, I should think.

Will this just add another layer to the partisan viciousness in Washington?
Will torture be added to abortion as a litmus test for Supreme Court picks?

Can anything useful come of this quarrel...or is it best put into the past, a la Ford?

JChem said: "Why are the Dems so split over this?"

I agree, that is an interesting question.

Cheney...leading a partisan attack for the GOP...clearly wants a fight on this issue. Pelosi...her partisan instincts overriding her political ones, as per usual...has charged at Cheney's red cape with maddened fury.

Obama is clearly reluctant to have a big fight. I believe his political instincts have usually been better than Pelosi's.


My personal view is: all or nothing.
Either bring everything out, releasing all documents -- including the Congressional leadership under oath testifying as to their knowledge -- or draw a line under the past.

Marlowe, you bring up a very good point about Cheney looking for a fight on this. It seems to me he is going all in simply because he knows much of the information that is currently secret, and that perhaps it will shine the light on some of those who are currently attacking him. I agree with you, the fact that he seems so anxious to jump in the ring should give the Dems pause.

The problem is that the cat's out of the bag. It should have been all or nothing, at least in my view. But now, given the release of the information that we currently have and all the quarreling over it, I just don't think that nothing is an option anymore.

Jchem said: "...I just don't think that nothing is an option anymore."

You are probably right. The Ford option is likely not viable at this point (sadly, as I think it may have been the best option).


I am very sure Cheney knows the full scope of the confidential documents...and that he also knows what senior Democrats on the Hill have been briefed on.

Will Pelosi testify under oath as to her knowledge (formal and "informal" - as per her "informal briefing" knowledge of the Harman wiretaps)?

Does Cheney have access to a paper trail regarding briefings of Congressional leaders?


As you say, JChem...Cheney is "going all in" on this.

Either he is bluffing big time...or he has a Full House ready to hit the Democrats.

"My personal view is: all or nothing.
Either bring everything out, releasing all documents -- including the Congressional leadership under oath testifying as to their knowledge -- or draw a line under the past."

If all information is released outside the strictures of a legal proceeding, it will quickly devolve into he said she said politics that does nothing to get to the truth.

Under oath testimony only has value if an impartial judge/jury make judgments as to a statements validity. If Pelosi says she wasn't informed, somebody has verify that through testimony.

The real problem occurs if a Special Prosecutor would be assigned. We may get the truth, but as in the Libby case, it could well take years for any conclusions. In the mean time, political chaos continues. A truth commission could allow for access to the evaluation process that normal legal proceeding does not.

I don't like the idea of no consequences for those that broke the law, but that has to be weighed against the American people's need to know the difference between what we say we stand for, and what has been done in our name. Dems or Repubs who broke the law deserve equal treatment.

From Greenwald today:

Bush-defending opponents of investigations and prosecutions think they've discovered a trump card: the claim that Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman were briefed on the torture programs and assented to them. The core assumption here -- shared by most establishment pundits -- is that the call for criminal investigations is nothing more than a partisan-driven desire to harm Republicans and Bush officials ("retribution"), and if they can show that some Democratic officials might be swept up in the inquiry, then, they assume, that will motivate investigation proponents to think twice.

Those who make that argument are clearly projecting. They view everything in partisan and political terms -- it's why virtually all media discussions are about what David Gregory calls "the politics of the torture debate" rather than the substantive issues surrounding these serious crimes -- and they are thus incapable of understanding that not everyone is burdened by the same sad affliction that plagues them.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/...

But Chris...this is a "trump card". Cheney implies he has it in his hand, and no one seems to doubt it.

As Greenwald makes clear, a lot of senior Democrats DO NOT want further investigations.


If you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind.

I believe that many Democratic partisans in the blogosphere...as well as folks like Olberman...think this is their opporunity to finally savage the hated Bush Co.


But if Cheney's trump is played...the damage will explode under the desks of the senior Democrats who are now in power...while the Republicans damaged are yesterday's news.

Cheney would be more than happy to go down...if he can take down the leaders of the Democratic majority today.


If that reality becomes apparent...expect a flurry of editorials in the New York Times, and Special Comments on MSNBC...about the need to end "witchhunts" and to put the past behind us.

Marlow,
I won't believe anything Cheney says without incontrovertible evidence, and neither should you. He's earned it with an endless stream of lies and criminal behavior.

I believe that many Democratic partisans in the blogosphere...as well as folks like Olberman...think this is their opporunity to finally savage the hated Bush Co.

Like Greenwald and John Cole have said, this isn't about an (R) or a (D) next to your name. High level authorization of torture crosses a very clear line of immorality and illegality. If investigations lead to the door steps of Democratic Congress members, then so be it. I don't want torturers and their enablers in my government and neither should you.

Chris, it is not a matter of believing Dick Cheney.

After all, Greenwald notes in his column that senior Democrats are averse to this investigation, and Greenwald suggests this is probably due to their complicit knowledge.


There are 2 frames for this story:

The political one. Cheney's trump card is, in effect, Mutual Assured Destruction.

The ethical one. Clearly a strong argument. But will politics trump ethics?


Robert Stein's recent post was excellent as he highlighted the moral murk with such decisions -- for example, Truman's A-bomb decision -- and the implication that the ethical judgements here are never simple.


Chris, I believe politics will trump ethics on this question.
Personally...at this point I believe everything should come out...but I think it won't.

There will be selective outings of documents...but no one has a desire for a full scale bloodletting

That is: there will be stabs for tactical political advantage...but vested interests in Washington will strategically step away from the button.

Marlow, also fits with Obama's actions.........and he has probably been briefed on who goes down. Therefore, no commission outside of White House control, but rather an inhouse project by the AG. Gives the left a bit of a tip of the political/emotional hat, but helps assure the news is controlled by the WH.

I agree with the payroll and regular GOP bloggers here:

We should just let the past be the past with respect to torture...

Like I and then the elephant cartoon said the day before and yesterday respectively: "Its not like someone had sex with an intern." That's the only stuff we should bring up, complete with the infamous "dress with semen stains" years after the fact.

That's juicy stuff to flog around endlessly. This little waterboarding thingy...let it go already!

; )

Casualobserver...I think you are right.

The WH seems to want DOJ control on the executive side. Reid does not want an independent commission...but instead, keeping control of the investigation on the Senate side.
That neither wants this investigation to get "out of control" is revealing.

Pelosi, of course, wants a full scale Nuremberg-like commission...but her political instincts have always taken second place to her desire to savage Republicans.


Silhouette said: "Like I and then the elephant cartoon said..."

Just to say, Sil...that line brought a smile to my face. :)

Pelosi, of course, wants a full scale Nuremberg-like commission

Given the likelihood of her own guilty, I highly doubt she is doing anything more than paying lip-service to the idea. I welcome her to prove me wrong.

Frankly I don't give #%^& whether the guilty or complicit are R's or D's. I want them rooted out and held accountable based on the standard. Do I think this is likely? I sure wish I could say yes.

A few low-level, blue collar people, working against the stated policies of their institution, freelanced their own knuckleheaded torture chamber at the Abu-Ghraib Prison and got the book thrown at them.

Actually GeorgeSorwell, those low-level people did not "freelance" at all. They acted under the instructions and orders of higher-ups, in a chain of command that went all the way to the top. It was Donald Rumsfeld that signed off on the torture that happened at Abu Ghraib. I'm not saying the low-level people are blameless, because clearly they knew what they were doing was wrong. And the fact that some actually did refuse to do it just underscores that point. But the fact remains they (the grunts) were railroaded and allowed to take the hit for what those above them ordered them to do.