A Couple Of Overlooked Points About The Torture Investigation Debate

I have this problem where I’m always so far head of the popular perception that very few people engage me when I am interested in something because it’s not in the headlines, and by the time it happens then I’m already worn out over it. That would make me a terrible politician or newsperson I think.

In any case I find it kind of surreal that all the talking points coming out now on both sides are mere rehashes of what was said four years ago and it’s like people have no memory of that. Or maybe they just weren’t interested back then, or something. Even a few months ago this issue was getting little traction a people were distracted by other things. I don’t really have much new to say, but would like to highlight a few posts I’ve written over the past few months and what has and hasn’t changed in that time, by using Newshogger posts as examples.

By far the biggest change is that it’s no longer a debate about whether the things were officially authorized. This clouded the whole topic for years, as people spent most of the time arguing whether or not high level officials approved all the “techniques.” I find it darkly humorous that during this time there was a strong implicit implication that it’d be awful if it was officially approved, and people would be outraged…but most likely it wasn’t because we’re America! It took a few amazing investigative reports and documentaries like I discussed here, as well as the legal process for detainees, to really bring all that to light.

The thing that is most absent from our national debate is the international viewpoint. I have long thought that it would take a prime role in international politics (both relations to other countries and their domestic viewpoints) and the floodgates would be open if we didn’t clean house. We are now seeing it affecting our strategic alliances as various people in Europe and the UN are lining up eagerly in case we punt the prosecutions.

No, torture doesn’t work and led to a lot of recruitment in Iraq, although there is now the Cheney led push back to say it prevented a new attack. We’ll see how that plays out. I predict poorly.

On a more philosophical level, I think it’s interesting to note that a lot of argument is over the fundamental nature of what’s Just…something that I think is inherently difficult for society to agree on. I think that some people are purposefully taking away international and historical context to play on this inherent divide.

Now for a couple of things that are almost completely new. There is going to be a major concerted effort to remind people that the “bad apples” of Abu Ghraib weren’t rogue soldiers, and how the policy makers left them out to dry to save their own skins. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this will become the most salient point in the discussion over the coming months. And rightly so.

The other major new development is a transformation of the debate from a purely strategic/philosophical level to a tactical level. For instance, even supporters of trials may want to rethink how quickly indictments occur. It will be interesting to see whether this is the start of a new conventional wisdom that we should move beyond the If and onto the How.

All in all, I think it’s clear that the culpable parties are following the scandal playbook to the dotted T. Deny, deny, deny…while acting outraged that it happened. This is in an attempt to drag out the process as long as possible and make it “old” while putting doubt in people’s minds and turning it into a “partisan issue.” Then as facts start leaking out, selectively provide justification or more denial, based on how damaging. Let underlings that are caught red handed be the fall guys. Again this is to let the juices soak in and harden the sides. When the final story is out, claim that it’s important that we move on and look to the future, to confuse moral matters, and then play the two sides off each other and hope you have enough to win or at least cause the other side to hesitate and look weak. If you can hold out until something bigger happens and captures people’s attention, you Win! [It's no coincidence that this is happening as the economy has stopped its freefall...if it starts the next stage down like I think, the whole thing will disappear. The next six months are crucial.]

Maybe soon I’ll spend some time pulling up all sorts of articles over the past six years, as the best way to confront the playbook is to retain a historical perspective.

Update: In the comments someone reminded me of what I was going to mention but got distracted. The reason why all the outside links are to Newshoggers is that in addition to their “extreme” nature (extreme being cool with the kids these days) they have been on top of this the entire time. Along with Glenn Greenwald, they had the most consistent analysis and news coverage IMO, so you should probably read them daily if you don’t already…