Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan
David Broder doesn’t get a whole lot of respect in the blogosphere. In more than one case, Border has been viewed as some what bland and grey with his calls for bipartisanship. But of course, Broder has been a reporter for a long time, longer than some of us (myself included) have been alive. He remembers when politics wasn’t as nasty as it is now, and remembers when politicians of all stripes worked for the greater good.
Broder wrote an op-ed recently where he called for the President to “stick to his guns” and not move towards the prosecutions of Bush-era officials who sanctioned torture. He thinks (as I do) that Obama was correct in releasing the torture memos, but fears that going after former Bushies will open a Pandora’s box:
But having vowed to end the practices, Obama should use all the influence of his office to stop the retroactive search for scapegoats.
This is not another Sept. 11 situation, when nearly 3,000 Americans were killed. We had to investigate the flawed performances and gaps in the system and make the necessary repairs to reduce the chances of a deadly repetition.
The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places — the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department — by the proper officials.
One administration later, a different group of individuals occupying the same offices has — thankfully — made the opposite decision. Do they now go back and investigate or indict their predecessors?
That way, inevitably, lies endless political warfare. It would set the precedent for turning all future policy disagreements into political or criminal vendettas. That way lies untold bitterness — and injustice.
Suppose that Obama backs down and Holder or someone else starts hauling Bush administration lawyers and operatives into hearings and courtrooms.
Suppose the investigators decide that the country does not want to see the former president and vice president in the dock. Then underlings pay the price while big shots go free. But at some point, if he is at all a man of honor, George W. Bush would feel bound to say: That was my policy. I was the president. If you want to indict anyone for it, indict me.
Is that where we want to go? I don’t think so. Obama can prevent it by sticking to his guns.
It’s a fair question. Going down the road towards prosecutions will infuriate the right and you can bet that when a Republican adminstation takes power, they will start looking under rocks for supposed crimes.
None of this impresses blogger Andrew Sullivan. He responds to Broder with a withering answer, full of fury at President Bush:
For an administration to secretly and illegally unleash this weapon – against citizens and non-citizens alike – and to demand that it not be subsequently called to account, that it be allowed to get away with it under some absurd notion that it’s too divisive to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes is and was an outrage. Punishing those responsible for war crimes is not “scapegoating”. You know what scapegoating is? It’s throwing Lynndie England in jail for following orders given by George W. Bush, while leaving him to the luxury of a Texan suburb.
He concludes by saying that the stakes are high in not seeking justice:
If America – America – discovers that its own president has illegally tortured and decides that it simply won’t do anything about it, that it doesn’t matter, that it’s too polarizing to restore the rule of law … then what hope do those people have? To whom will they look when they fight far more pervasive tyranny, buttressed by the same absolute power to coerce the truth and break the human soul?
I have to say that I lost a lot of respect for Andrew Sullivan a long time ago. My problem with him is that he takes on a cause so passionately that he refuses to see the consequences of his actions. In the run-up to the Iraq War, he was one of the most passionate supporters for the war, damn all the concerns that the war could become a quagmire. Anyone that believed we shouldn’t go to war, was basically consorting with evil.
Now, Sullivan wants to see the Bushies, the ones he once supported, prosecuted for war crimes and damn the consecquences. Nevermind if this could rip this country apart in ways we have not known.
I am no fan let alone a friend of the Bush Adminstration. I think they did a lot to destroy the Republican Party and sully America. I think they were wrong to even entertain the thought of torture. But other concerns have to be taken into account before we think we need to have war crime trials. If we start investigating a former adminstration in the way that Sullivan and others want, it will not stop there. We will have opened a nasty precedent that we will have to live with for generations. Investigations will fly like crazy.
Border’s approach is not perfect. Yes it would allow the Bushies “to get away with it.” But in the real world, we sometimes have to make some calls we don’t like. Sullivan’s approach might be feel better, wrapped in a cloak we think is justice, but it might end up a phyrric victory: winning the battle of bringing Bush to justice and destroying the fabric of America.
Broder remembers when Republicans and Democrats disagreed but were able to friends. he knows the past and sees the present which is not like that anymore. He also fears what the future brings.
Sometimes the old man has something worthwhile to say. It would be nice if young whippersnappers like Sullivan would listen.
95 Responses to “Truth, Consequences and Andrew Sullivan”
Dennis,
This post has to be the most shallow, uninformed piece of drivel I've yet read on this blog.
Let's be clear: Sullivan is correct (in this case) and you live in fairytale land.
You wrote:
“If we start investigating a former adminstration in the way that Sullivan and others want, it will not stop there. We will have opened a nasty precedent that we will have to live with for generations. Investigations will fly like crazy.”
Oh my, wouldn't it be just HORRIBLE if people who committed crimes were prosecuted!
It wouldn't be nice at all for them, and their friends might get mad and try to get revenge on other nice people.
How are we going to have a nice, polite country if people act like that?
Do you understand ANYTHING about rule of law? Have you ever read the Constituition?
People have DIED building and defending our nation of laws.
You believe that if someone achieves a certain level of political status, that laws do not and should not apply to them?
Your knowledge of history is incredibly shallow.
If we let this bunch of criminals slide, the next bunch will be much, much worse.
I'm very sorry to have to tell you this, but you need to get your head out of your ass.
We've been through Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater, so I have a hard time seeing how investigating the use of torture by the Bush Administration would lead to endless political warfare. It seems to me that the genie is already out of the bottle.
There are some crimes that I might be willing to overlook even if there were only a small chance that doing so might bring the country together, but torture is not one of those crimes. Remember when Bush declared that, “we do not torture.” He didn't merely say that we hadn't tortured; he was expressing the idea that torture is inconsistent with our national identity, and I think he was correct. As I understand it, the United States committed itself to prosecuting torture when it signed the U.N. convention against torture, but that wasn't regarded as a concession by the United States. The assumption is that we would prosecute torture anyway, and that the point of the convention was to restrain other countries with lower moral standards. In my view, the prohibition against torture is too fundamental to be tossed aside for political reasons.
joeaudio -
Your thinking is the incredibly shallow one.
Presidents have routinely lied, violated the Constitution in the name of saving it and Democracy, sanctioned murder, assignations, government overthrows, betrayals, willfully ignored the Constitution and the Supreme Court, and yes, authorized torture. REAL torture, not the namby-pamby sort that the remaining BDS warriors are using to cling desperately to their mental-masturbation image of seeing Rove, Cheney and Bush frog-marched in chains off to jail, that they feel they they have been denied.
Real politics requires really nasty, dirty work and decisions, as every single President in history, every single one, has found out. It is time for the Left to stop living in THEIR fairyland, as they are the ones that certainly are. The world is not a nice place, and the Neville Chamberlain's of the world are not the heroes or defenders of Good; the Churchill's and Bush's are, despite the queasy little feeling it gives the faint of heart in their tum-tums when those men have to do what is necessary, when it is necessary, for the greater Good.
I'd like to ask (with less obscenities), why should we consider torture something of a political nature? Torture, at its core, is the physical, mental and emotional dominance of another human being. We've established many times that it is considered depraved and unacceptable to American concepts of governmental powers.
My basic question is, why is a inquiry into the previous administration's use and institution of torture as a means to gather intelligence view through partisan lenses? It's immaterial (to me) if a hypothetical administration that tortured was Democratic, Republican, Green or Martian; if torture was a part of its policy, we needs to investigate. Anything else is an acceptance of a sliding scale of justice, that if the politically well-connected err, we can't talk about it because their supporters will get angry.
Furthermore, picture the debate we'd be having if the previous administration (regardless of political affiliation) had a policy of rape (which, when you think about it, is similar to torture). Would the allied political faction still be defending them? If so, what does that say about that political faction? The country as a whole? The fact we're even debating this means that, in a way, we've already lost. The terrorists have already won.
Austin,
you are so RIGHT.
It's time for us to MAN UP and admit that we're fucking Nazi fascist pigs.
Zeig heil.
for the greater Good. Ha!
Imbecile.
“their mental-masturbation image of seeing Rove, Cheney and Bush frog-marched in chains off to jail, that they feel they they have been denied.”
BTW, when you go off on your perverted fantasies, you might want to keep it yourself.
Others find it disgusting. Keep your hands to yourself.
LOL
If you are SO offended at the term 'mental-masturbation', frankly, you shouldn't be hanging around the internet at all.
Of course, you are not offended, just full of, well, I don't want to use 'foul language', so I will say 'excrement'.
Or is that too harsh as well, and likely to give you the vapors?
HA HA HA HA!
Austin,
right, never use foul language, your thoughts are foul enough.
now you're doing fart jokes?
as I said:
imbecile.
Facebook – rape as a method of attempting to extract information is real torture. None of the methods used remotely climbs to that level, which is part of the point I am have had a issue with.
have you read the actual memo's, in their entirety, not just the excerpts? It was a reasoned attempt to define where the line was, and much of them discussed that fact – doing 'x' is crossing the line, not doing 'x' is not. It was not a carte blanch approval of 'whatever you want to do'.
The disagreement now is an after the fact re-examination of the conclusions of those memo's. If BushCo really was bent on freewheeling torture, why did they even bother to commission the memo's in the first place? The argument to provide political cover doesn't hold water, as we see, and did define limits. If they wanted no limits on their actions, then they would not have requested them – they would have had Bush attempt to issue secret Executive Orders with no underlying boundaries.
joeaudio -
Last post (ever) to you, troll.
You are allowing your ignorance and lack of education to show. The only thing you could possible think was a 'fart joke' was my comment about you getting the vapors. You display your own crudeness, and stupidity, in your lack of comprehension and knowledge.
So, your last bit of education for the night:
“The vapors is an old term for hypochondriasis or hysterical depression. It was also used as a pseudonym for female hysteria, a Victorian-era diagnosis. Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and “a tendency to cause trouble”.”
1. you think that people in U.S. custody have not been raped? you need more complete info.
2. the memos were written after the fact to justify things already done.
3. the torture was used to produce false confessions, as it was used by the commies that SERE learned it from.
4. “which is part of the point I am have had a issue with.”
where the fuck did you learn to speak English?
5. again: imbecile
6. no response to my comment?: “It's time for us to MAN UP and admit that we're fucking Nazi fascist pigs.”
7. not enough time or words to explain the ways you are wrong.
8. repeated ad hominem: imbecile
9. have a good night, don't think I'm mean because I call you bad names. sometimes bad shit just happens.
By allowing the executive branch to get away with potential crimes, we are sincerly giving the example the “Administration is Above the Law” new meaning.
I guess every American should commit some crimes and not get investigated by claiming executive privilege
, then we can have some legal equality.
Why is it, that all of a sudden, investigating the government in America, is Un-American, and going to open a pandora's box.
For the naysayers:
Can you please provide real life examples, of an investigation of government that caused a pandoras box to open? And please show an investigation of Government, that also undermined that nations security and safety for it's citizens.
If you can show me one, I will be on board with your agrument.
So, you subscribe to the belief that the “rule of law” only applies to grunts like Lynndie England, but I'll be damned if it applies to men in expensive suits!!!
Come on, I'm so tired of the rich and powerful doing whatever they want to do, without answering for their crimes. How do you think Lynndie England feels when she can't get a job at a burger joint because of her felon status? What was her crime? Stepping into a few pictures out of thousands that were taken. She didn't touch anyone, or torture – she wasn't even a guard at AG – she was visiting Graner who was simply following orders. You have no idea what those reservists went through at AG, or since then. Meanwhile, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld live in luxury.
By the way, I hear that Lynndie's only authorized biography will be in bookstores on June 1. The title is: “Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib, and the Photographs that Shocked the World”…
AR
Leaving aside the histrionics, don't you believe Americans should be held to the same standards we have judged our enemies?
The US executed Japanese who water boarded Americans after WWII.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/stateme…
That was “the real world” then, why argue we now live in a fairyland now? Real politics require acknowledgment of that fact or else you're just making justice up as you go along. Nothing has changed but the actors.
I have some sympathy with both sides of this argument.
The thought of torture by my country's government makes me sick to my stomach. It flies directly in the face of my own view of us. If we are going to present ourselves to the world as some kind of shining example, then we are going to have to insist on higher standards for our own behavior — not just when things are going well, but also when we're challenged by adversity.
That is, after all, the real test of one's values — and the government is the representative of us, is it not?
But… I also think a lot of people are whistling right past the political cemetery here.
The “left” has put rather a lot of energy in past years (all 8 of the Bush years, I think) into talk about impeachment. And there's a LOT of residual anger about the Clinton persecution. BDS is not a phantom invented by the fringey 'right'. Thus, it's nearly impossible now to see the cries for investigation and prosecution as somehow above the fray, or impartial.
Furthermore, I have to agree with AustinRoth on one point: governments (including ours!) have done many vile things in the past for which they have not been held accountable. An example that stands out for me is our activities in Central America over the years.
Why this, and not other infractions?
Finally — I think there's an odd tendency for some folks to misunderstand the incredible depth of reaction to 9/11 that was experienced by many Americans. Yes, it was horrifying for us all, but while many people recovered their equilibrium, not everyone did.
In many ways, I look at 2002 / 2003 / 2004 as a period of collective American insanity. As a result, I'm sympathetic to the argument that exposing it, drawing a line in the sand against repeating it, and moving on would be best for the country.
If we don't prosecute those who broke the law by torturing then what is to stop the next person from doing it? If you know that you can get away with it then even knowing it is wrong won't stop you because you have no incentive not to do it. Knowing that you likely will get prosecuted may stop it from happening again.
There is also the fact that I think that Americans can handle prosecutions. Aside from the fringe on both sides of the aisle, I have a lot of faith in the country. Will it likely set off some of the people on the far right? Probably yes. But everything President Obama has done has set them off so why should we let a vocal minority dictate what the country does? Polling has suggested that most people support investigations and prosecutions. We're not little kids – we can handle these types of debates and discussions.
I'm somewhat torn on this issue. Accountability is critically important if Americans are to be expected to believe civilized standards apply to everyone, and not just those who don't reach some particular threshold for power and influence. Who should be above the law in our country? Who should have immunity from the consequences of their actions? If leaders in a democratic government, who have been granted trust by their constituents, are found to have been acting in a criminal and immoral fashion, and then are given the equivalent of a verbal scolding, what is the message being sent?
Conversely, the comments made by Polimom also resonate for me, which is to say, what could be the ramifications of holding those responsible accountable? The partisan divide is already steep and wide, this would only increase it. And where do we draw the line? Prior to the reign of GWB, the greatest partisan debacle in recent history was the Bill Clinton witchhunt, and it still resonates after all this time. The GWB administration did a great deal to continue and worsen that divide, and while the phenomenon of BDS surely exists among some people, most of what I've seen referred to as BDS was in fact appropriate outrage and disappointment at abysmal leadership. That said, it is a bitter pill for many on the right.
So should the fear of loud, angry, (and often irrational) voices be the deciding factor? Should we try to quash all this talk of holding the proponents of torture accountable for fear of inciting people like Malkin, Savage, Beck, Limbaugh, all the members of their club, and by extension much of the country? We know those people are deeply invested in discontent and they make their living fanning the flames of controversy. Would that become a battling of the Hydra senario? Which battles are worth fighting and which aren't? Wouldn't this be great if partisanship could be removed from the equation. Then the matter could be investigated and resolved based only on the merits of the case. A nice fantasy anyway..
Dennis- you said:
“If we start investigating a former adminstration in the way that Sullivan and others want, it will not stop there. We will have opened a nasty precedent that we will have to live with for generations. Investigations will fly like crazy.”
Wrong Dennis, they will fly only until future administrations figure out they can't get away with breaking the law. If investigations fly like crazy until then – good.
If this is not investigated and prosecuted where appropriate we all become guilty of war crimes.
Well, I guess we're going to read and hear just about anything as the torture debate rages on. But accusing a blogger who has been out in front of this story for a couple of years of being too passionate and praising a veteran Inside-the-Beltway journalist who lost his mojo even more years ago for wishing the whole sordid mess away is a first.
Job well done, Mr. Sanders!
Ron, your assessment is only accurate if you presume that investigations only come up when there's actual probable cause of a crime, rather than investigations motivated by partisanship.
Partisanship, the most evil, nasty word here at the Moderate Voice. Truly there is not a more vile curse one could cast at another. I am willing to do anything-ANYTHING-including defend torture, as long as I'm not accused of partisanship! If I were, my wink and nod, It's all a game, Villager status would be in severe doubt.
Also, I agree with AustinRoth. Presidents have broken the law before, and will in the future, so why shrink away from it? Instead, let us celebrate the President-as-Tyrant image. Also, I fully expect AustinRoth to come out and admit the Clinton impeachment was partisan-motivated and Clinton should have allowed to dip his stick where he may then lie about it, without fear of prosecution.
@ Polimom-Why this, instead of other crimes? Well, it's probably because no Administration has been caught red handed so fully and effectively.
CStanley:
According to many accounts at the time, the calls for a 9/11 Commission were partisan and it was conveniently parsed as such by a White House that did NOT want to get to the bottom of the events leading up to that horrible day because, as we were to learn, it had much to hide and feared a witch hunt.
And so by your crude calculus calls for a thorough investigation of what most people would now consider to be torture cannot be given their due because they too are being portrayed as partisan.
Therefore, I can reasonably conclude that you would have opposed the 9/11 Commission, correct?
CSStanley
I'm not going to say that partisan witch hunts won't occur but those will probably happen anyway. That is no reason to not go investigate those who actually may have broken the law. The fact that this is a partisan issue at all shows just how low this country has gone. Apparently we are no longer a nation of laws and that many if not most are OK with that. A very sad day.
AR I'm shocked that we fing gambling partisanship going on here. I wonder how the dark side reacted when Roberts stonewalled his Phase II report, I bet he was considered a 'true patroit'.
Let me remind you again what you on the right are defending. Innocent people with no evidence against them, naked and shivering in the dark, for weeks, then dog collared, humiliated, degraded, urinated and defecated on, sodomized with broom handles and rifle barrels, hearing destroyed by yelling through a megaphone in their ears, electrodes on their genitals, beaten, kicked and yes, sometimes raped and murdered.
That is what you are defending. That is what you want us to move on from. What if it was your son or daughter? What if their Iranian torturers had a note from their lawyer?
On this issue, I have ZERO sympathy for those who condone or excuse this inhumanity. May you find your reward in hell.
Let me remind you again what you on the right are defending. Innocent people with no evidence against them, naked and shivering in the dark, for weeks, then dog collared, humiliated, degraded, urinated and defecated on, sodomized with broom handles and rifle barrels, hearing destroyed by yelling through a megaphone in their ears, electrodes on their genitals, beaten, kicked and yes, sometimes raped and murdered.
Baloney. No one is defending those actions and your hyperbole makes an excellent argument for what David Broder is saying.
Dennis, I'm sorry. I can't seem to remember. What was your stance on the Iraq War? Moreover, I could be wrong, but weren't you quite a stringent supporter of the Republican Party line and George W. Bush for several years?
My point here is not to dismiss your criticism, but to point out that there's more than one way to make mistakes and reach the wrong and/or damaging conclusions about things.
Your criticism of Andrew Sullivan is apt. He always get extremely passionate about everything, and it makes him very blind at times, to the reality of the alternate point of view. You had to support the war. Then you had to recognize it was awful. You had to support, and then you had to be outraged. Everything had to be done at an absolute level. When things seemed to be progressing (the surge), Andrew was already being overly optimistic about touting an exit as closer and perhaps more blood-free.
Your assessment of that flaw is pretty accurate. However, it's important to remember that it's not the only cognitive flaw that exists, and that a person can be mistaken even in moments of moderacy.
Baloney back, DaGoat. That is what was done in our names. Now the right doesn't want these crimes investigated or prosecuted. They want Obama to become accessory to those crimes by not doing his constitutional duty to vigorously investigate and prosecute, and they want him to invalidate international extradition treaties to keep those who have been VICTIMS of crime from prosecuting these criminals.
Real victims had their lives destroyed and some died, leaving widows and orphans. They deserve justice.
Polimom, JSpencer, et al
Let me disambiguate your torn position to “see both sides” of this issue. The US hung people for water boarding, a rather unambiguous judgment for the very act we are debating.
This is not land deals or BJs, this is torture. This is the reason we have laws, and why we hold those laws above men; not vice versa. Calculating the future political effects may seem reasonable, ignoring executed men is not.
GD, as I've said repeatedly, I do not defend those actions despite your repeated attempts to portray my position that way.
My view is that the end goal of stopping those acts in the future is best served by convincing all Americans that those acts are morally wrong and unnecessary for our general defense and security. Since polling is showing that half of the country is as yet not on that page, I think that our efforts should go toward changing hearts and minds rather than attempting to finger certain individuals and have them punished for the acts. And since criminal investigations will actually harden the minds of the people whose minds need to be changed, I oppose prosecutions on those grounds.
So please, spare me your outrage on what I am 'defending'. I'm simply being a realist about what I believe will be the most effective course toward a more just stance going forward.
Shaun- no, you are not correct. The two situations are quite different, therefore my assessment of what I think is the best way to proceed right now and the way I felt we should have proceeded then are also not identical.
CS, with all due respect, you are defending the idea that criminals should go free who did what was already illegal and is obviously morally reprehensible. You have steadfastly asserted that those who ordered these practices, the lawyers who rationalized them and the sadists who carried them out should ALL be excused.
For those who hold that prosecution is the only answer: do you accept that the outcome would possibly bring down the top-levels of government, on both sides of the aisle?
CStanley:
Nice try but no cigar.
My intent is not to ignite a flame war, let alone a side debate, but the 9/11 Commission and what to do about torture are precisely analogous insofar as the partisan angle.
CS
“I'm simply being a realist about what I believe will be the most effective course toward a more just stance going forward.”
A very sophisticated view, but how does that sophistication deal with the US hanging those who had water boarded Americans, but “move on” when we do the same to others? Please explain the subtle difference.
Baloney back, DaGoat. That is what was done in our names. It's not hyperbole. How I wish it were. These were documented acts against human beings. Now the right doesn't want these crimes investigated or prosecuted. AR calls these methods “the namby-pamby sort” and not real torture.
What we're “defending” is acceptable methods of interrogation as outlined by the Bush Administration attorneys. Almost none of the actions you mention were felt to be acceptable. This is the problem with this discussion – the definition of torture is all over the place.
The issue is really were the guidelines set by the Bush Administration excessive, and is so were they excessive to the point where vigorous investigation/prosecution is appropriate. While I think some of the guidelines were excessive, none of them condoned sodomy, rape, murder, etc.
No, DaGoat, that was last month's issue.
This month's issue is what, if anything, to do about key Bush administration enablers now that there is a fairly widespread consensus (yes, including conservatives beyond that Shep Smith) that what occurred what textbook torture and, except for the morally and politically impaired, torture is not an acceptable government policy.
Polimom
“do you accept that the outcome would possibly bring down the top-levels of government, on both sides of the aisle?”
Conversely, do you accept we give up a nation of laws for political expediency?
Your hypothetical implies a threat to the government, it is merely a threat to citizens who broke the law. The threat to our government only occurs in we chose to ignore government institutionalized criminality. I submit that the government's survival is not at stake, only people who broke the law while serving in government. You seem to miss that distinction.
“Your hypothetical implies a threat to the government, it is merely a threat to citizens who broke the law. The threat to our government only occurs in we chose to ignore government institutionalized criminality.”
HemmD, no. Not at all. I'm asking whether you (and others here) recognize that prosecution would doubtless extend to members of Congress as well — including prominent Democrats.
I was merely trying to see whether folks understand that there was more to this than Bush / Cheney / usual partisan targets.
OK, DaGoat, how about prosecuting those who went beyond what the memos authorized? Set your bar. Those who sodomized or raped prisoners should be prosecuted. Is that acceptable to you? What about the megaphones in the ears (organ damage is specifically defined as torture)?
Then we can quibble about whether you think “humiliation and degradation” which IS authorized by those memos, should be excused. The pictures that horrified the nation, naked in dog collars. Is that not humiliation and degradation? Should those be (should they have been) prosecuted?
DaGoat
“
What we're “defending” is acceptable methods of interrogation as outlined by the Bush Administration attorneys.”
Your defending what compelled the US to execute water boarders in the past. What's so different now?
Shaun, sorry but “I'm right, you're wrong” isn't an actual debate.
Polimom, I do not believe legislators are culpable, as they were excluded from decision-making. I would accept them being tried, Democrats included, but really doubt there is any chance of conviction. The Executive Branch made clear that they had full authority to do these things without authorization from Congress.
CStanley:
Not even close and certainly no cigar.
So you are saying that the partisanship displayed in the run-up to the eventual formation of a 9/11 Commission and the partisanship today are not analogous?
Just what are you saying?
Polimom
I did not mean to imply lack of insight on your part.
I believe those that serve in government who break the law should be punished to the maximum measure. This is not an attempt at revenge, it is a belief that those who hold the public trust never break that trust. That is part of our definition of “a nation of laws.”
Yes, Shaun, that is what I'm saying and I don't even understand how you could see it differently. Was there a crime (on the part of US officials) being investigated by the 9/11 commission? Was there as serious of a difference of opinion which divided the country on how the country needed to go forward on an issue of moral importance like torture?
I've explained my reasoning- that the divide right now in the country between the very substantial number of people who still feel that the interrogation tactics were justified and those who feel that that's absolutely incorrect and the tactics must stop, is the most critical hurdle that we have to pass. There was no similar division of opinion that affected future policy in the case of the 9/11 commission, and no one was looking to litigate any policy decisions that had been made by the current or past administrations. Those are the salient differences that make your analogy inapt.
GreenDreams — then you feel that Congress-critters who were briefed, but did not try to raise the roof about it, are not culpable? I don't get that, personally.
This train of thought, btw, goes back to my original comment on this thread. Like the invasion of Iraq, I believe we've all been living in a country suffering from collective insanity. No, everyone didn't succumb, but many — maybe even most — did. Some have not yet recovered.
Yes, there were objections raised. I raised them myself. But there are millions — millions — of people who thought the administration's policies on this subject were necessary evils. And I firmly believe that quite a number of people in Congress fall into that group.
PM- I agree completely, and as I've been pointing out, the number of people who 'have not yet recovered' is still quite substantial.
This is another veiled attempt to justify torture by bring up AS past rants. But many sincere conservatives address the issues instead of towing a partisan line.
Larison: http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/04/27/tort… of the things that has kept me from saying much over the last week or so is my sheer amazement that there are people who seriously pose such questions and expect to be answered with something other than expressions of bafflement and moral horror. Something else that has kept me from writing much on this recently is the profoundly dispiriting realization (really, it is just a reminder) that it is torture and aggressive war that today’s mainstream right will go to the wall to defend, while any and every other view can be negotiated, debated, compromised or abandoned. I have started doubting whether people who are openly pro-torture or engaged in the sophistry of Manzi’s post are part of the same moral universe as I am, and I have wondered whether there is even a point in contesting such torture apologia as if they were reasonable arguments deserving of real consideration.
Another take on not appoligizing for W's folly:
http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/
http://theamericanscene.com/2009/04/27/why-coun…
It occurs to me that the Bush Administration has already been discredited in the view of a majority of the voters. Republicans started distancing themselves from Bush after the 2004 election. By the time Bush proposed the TARP program, Republicans were in open revolt against the nominal leader of their party. So I don't think that investigations into the use of torture by the Bush Administration will do much to improve Democrats' political prospects. If Republicans win the presidency again, it won't be by convincing voters that what the nation really needs is a return to the Bush years, any more than Clinton won by promising to recreate the Jimmy Carter years.
That won't prevent people on the political right from claiming, or believing, that the calls to hold people accountable are nothing more than an attempt to use the issue for partisan political gain, but it does make the charge a bit less plausible.
The torture controversy is different from scandals such as Watergate, Iran-Contra, or the various charges against Clinton because Bush is no longer president. The people pushing to investigate those scandals could be viewed as attempting shift the balance of political power by undermining a sitting president. That's not the case for the torture scandal because Bush is no longer president.
“GreenDreams — then you feel that Congress-critters who were briefed, but did not try to raise the roof about it, are not culpable? I don't get that, personally.”
I'm not saying that was acceptable behavior. I'm saying it would not make them guilty in a court of law. They did not design or authorize these techniques. They were not even asked for “advice and consent”. They were simply briefed on what the administration planned to do. Nothing the legislators did could cause crimes to be committed or to prevent that. In fact, they were forbidden by law to “raise the roof”. They were forbidden to call the press or even tell other legislators, all under the rubric of “state secrets.”
The Bush administration asserted that it was within the authority of the Commander in Chief to implement this program. Like it or not, by asserting exclusive authority, they also assumed exclusive responsibility.