A recent David S. Broder column in The Washington Post, Stop Scapegoating: Why Obama Should Stick to His Guns on Torture Prosecutions, has it that those who (like this blogger) want a 9/11-type commission to investigate the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used during the Bush administration to extract intelligence from terrorist prisoners are misguided.
Mr. Broder thinks President Obama should "trust his instincts and stick to his guns" about not sanctioning a truth commission and not allowing CIA operatives to be prosecuted. To Mr. Broder, a truth commission or special prosecutor would amount to little more than a "retroactive search for scapegoats."
Yes, this blogger admits, some people would treat the search for truth and justice as an opportunity to poke their political or ideological opponents in the eye. The accusations and recriminations might well come thick and furious, and the process could conceivably get so out of hand that President Obama could, for the duration, kiss his forward-looking agenda goodbye.
But, two things: One, the fact that some people have a strong thirst for political vengeance is no reason not to adjudicate the torture controversy. Two, sometimes settling the sins of the past has to precede engineering the blessings of the future.
If a thirst for vengeance by the concerned parties were allowed to determine whether adjudication ought to take place, there would never be a trial for murder or rape. According to Mr. Broder's logic, the sheer fact of all of that emotional contention between the prosecution's side and the defense would swamp the justice which unbiased adjudication is meant to mete out. Yet we all agree that the processes of justice and adjudication must go on, despite the rampant contention and angry seeking of revenge.
Also, one of the mottoes of this blog is the Rudyard Kipling quote, "Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right." President Obama's preference to turn the page hastily on past instances of torture at the hands of U.S. officials does not set the matter right, because it does not settle the matter at all.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
George F. Will - Washington Unreconciled on Torture
George F. Will writes, in Washington Unreconciled on 'Reconciliation' and Torture, about:
Much of this is right, but not the part about when and under what circumstances "the OLC can no longer be considered a bulwark of the rule of law." This blog feels that the OLC sacrificed its right to that designation by trying, under the previous administration, to justify the unjustifiable torturing of enemy combatants: terrorists who might (or might not) cough up information about al Qaeda's plans for future mischief.
Calling waterboardings (simulated drownings) "enhanced interrogation techniques" rather than "torture" was a transparent attempt to obfuscate the truth. Admittedly, it was done by patriots for understandable reasons: to provide cover for other patriots, namely CIA operatives trying to protect American lives from further 9/11-type terrorist acts. It was still wrong.
As Mr. Will says, "First, torture is illegal. Second, if an enemy used some of the 'enhanced interrogation' techniques against any American, most Americans would call that torture."
Agreed. So it was still "torture" when we did it to our enemies.
Yet Mr. Will, in his third point, insists that "that does not mean that the memos defending the legality of those techniques were indefensible, let alone criminal." His rationale here is embodied in his fourth point, which I find a bit "tortured" in its verbal expression. By "the president [Obama] might be mistaken in saying that there is no difficult choice because coercive interrogation techniques are ineffective," I assume Mr. Will means: interrogation under extreme duress just might produce reliable and useful information. That is, what the victims of torture say to their tormentors might actually be reliably true, and hence useful.
Moreover, it might not be truth that could be elicited any other way, such as slowly and steadily wearing down a detainee's resistance by non-abusive methods.
And it might be truth that we can reliably distinguish from falsehoods the detainee might likewise utter, just to get the pain and fear of torture to stop.
And it might help us foil future attacks.
So it might be defensible (and non-criminal) that OLC endorsed the use of torture in the dire situation the Bush administration faced in 2002 and 2003.
Huh?
I'm not totally clear on Mr. Will's line of argument here, but he seems to be saying that, if all the above are so, the OLC memos might have been legally proper.
That's hard to swallow. Mr. Will seems to be contending that what "most Americans" would find to be "torture" if it were used against Americans should not be the determinative factor in this case. OK, say I: what should be determinative? Not, I would contend, memos from within the machinery of an administration bound and determined to skirt the spirit of international law on torture by redefining what that law proscribes as "enhanced interrogation techniques."
So, yes, a formal adjudicative panel, congressional or independent, should ask the hard questions, including those whose answers liberal Democrats (such as this blogger) least want to hear. Was former CIA Director Tenet right about the interrogations saving lives and disrupting plots? Was former national intelligence director McConnell likewise correct in attributing saved lives to the interrogations? Why didn't House Speaker Pelosi, who (prior to becoming Speaker) was briefed on anticipated interrogation techniques, speak up?
All this needs to come out before the country can put the torture issue to rest.
... the institution at the center of the controversy about torture -- the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. From it came the so-called "torture memos" arguing the legality of certain "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
The OLC provides opinions about what is and is not lawful government behavior. By not quickly quashing talk about prosecutions of the authors of the memos -- or, by inference, higher officials who acted on the basis of those memos -- the president has compromised the OLC's usefulness: If its judgments can be criminalized by the next administration, the OLC can no longer be considered a bulwark of the rule of law.
On the other hand, four things are clear. First, torture is illegal. Second, if an enemy used some of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques against any American, most Americans would call that torture. Third, that does not mean that the memos defending the legality of those techniques were indefensible, let alone criminal, because: Fourth, the president might be mistaken in saying that there is no difficult choice because coercive interrogation techniques are ineffective.
A congressional panel, or one akin to the Sept. 11 commission, should discover what former CIA director George Tenet meant when he said: "I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots." And what former national intelligence director Mike McConnell meant when he said: "We have people walking around in this country that are alive today because this process happened."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was frequently briefed as a member of the intelligence committee, could usefully answer the question: What did you know and when did you know it? She regularly conquered reticence about her disapproval of the Bush administration. Why not about the interrogation methods?
Furthermore, four of the president's 15 Cabinet members are former members of Congress, as are the president, vice president and White House chief of staff. So seven of the administration's 18 most senior figures might usefully answer those questions, and this one: What did you do about what you knew?
Much of this is right, but not the part about when and under what circumstances "the OLC can no longer be considered a bulwark of the rule of law." This blog feels that the OLC sacrificed its right to that designation by trying, under the previous administration, to justify the unjustifiable torturing of enemy combatants: terrorists who might (or might not) cough up information about al Qaeda's plans for future mischief.
Calling waterboardings (simulated drownings) "enhanced interrogation techniques" rather than "torture" was a transparent attempt to obfuscate the truth. Admittedly, it was done by patriots for understandable reasons: to provide cover for other patriots, namely CIA operatives trying to protect American lives from further 9/11-type terrorist acts. It was still wrong.
As Mr. Will says, "First, torture is illegal. Second, if an enemy used some of the 'enhanced interrogation' techniques against any American, most Americans would call that torture."
Agreed. So it was still "torture" when we did it to our enemies.
Yet Mr. Will, in his third point, insists that "that does not mean that the memos defending the legality of those techniques were indefensible, let alone criminal." His rationale here is embodied in his fourth point, which I find a bit "tortured" in its verbal expression. By "the president [Obama] might be mistaken in saying that there is no difficult choice because coercive interrogation techniques are ineffective," I assume Mr. Will means: interrogation under extreme duress just might produce reliable and useful information. That is, what the victims of torture say to their tormentors might actually be reliably true, and hence useful.
Moreover, it might not be truth that could be elicited any other way, such as slowly and steadily wearing down a detainee's resistance by non-abusive methods.
And it might be truth that we can reliably distinguish from falsehoods the detainee might likewise utter, just to get the pain and fear of torture to stop.
And it might help us foil future attacks.
So it might be defensible (and non-criminal) that OLC endorsed the use of torture in the dire situation the Bush administration faced in 2002 and 2003.
Huh?
I'm not totally clear on Mr. Will's line of argument here, but he seems to be saying that, if all the above are so, the OLC memos might have been legally proper.
That's hard to swallow. Mr. Will seems to be contending that what "most Americans" would find to be "torture" if it were used against Americans should not be the determinative factor in this case. OK, say I: what should be determinative? Not, I would contend, memos from within the machinery of an administration bound and determined to skirt the spirit of international law on torture by redefining what that law proscribes as "enhanced interrogation techniques."
So, yes, a formal adjudicative panel, congressional or independent, should ask the hard questions, including those whose answers liberal Democrats (such as this blogger) least want to hear. Was former CIA Director Tenet right about the interrogations saving lives and disrupting plots? Was former national intelligence director McConnell likewise correct in attributing saved lives to the interrogations? Why didn't House Speaker Pelosi, who (prior to becoming Speaker) was briefed on anticipated interrogation techniques, speak up?
All this needs to come out before the country can put the torture issue to rest.
Poll Finds Public Divided on U.S. Torture of Terrorists
A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that "the public is about evenly divided on the questions of whether torture is justifiable in terrorism cases and whether there should be official inquiries into any past illegality involving the treatment of terrorism suspects. About half of all Americans, and 52 percent of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against such suspects."
"Barely more than half of all poll respondents," continued the article in the Post of 4/26/09,
The data from the poll can be found here. Questions 29, 30, and 31 are on the torture issue.
"Barely more than half of all poll respondents," continued the article in the Post of 4/26/09,
... back Obama's April 16 decision to release the memos specifying how and when to employ specific interrogation techniques. A third "strongly oppose" that decision, about as many as are solidly behind it. Three-quarters of Democrats said they approve of the action, while 74 percent of Republicans are opposed; independents split 50 to 46 percent in favor of the decision.
The release of the documents, which was fiercely debated at high levels within the government [i.e., the Obama administration], met with quick fire from former vice president Richard B. Cheney, who said last week that companion memos showing the "success of the effort" should be declassified as well, arguing that the methods had "been enormously valuable in terms of saving lives, preventing another mass casualty attack against the United States."
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who served in the same position in George W. Bush's administration, supported the release of the documents but said it made him "quite concerned with the potential backlash in the Middle East and in the theaters where we are involved in conflict -- that it might have a negative impact on our troops."
Americans also split about evenly on whether the new administration should investigate whether the kind of treatment meted out to terrorism suspects under the Bush administration broke laws, with 51 percent in favor of such inquiries and 47 percent in opposition. About seven in 10 Democrats support such action; a similar proportion of Republicans opposes it. As a candidate, Obama said: "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."
The data from the poll can be found here. Questions 29, 30, and 31 are on the torture issue.
Settling It Right: The Torture Question
This blog is dedicated to the idea that the whole truth should come out about the torture, earlier in this decade, of enemy combatants (suspected terrorists) imprisoned by the United States. It holds that those who broke the law against torturing enemy prisoners should be prosecuted.
Torture is, this blog insists, morally wrong under all circumstances. The torture of enemy combatants by any country — including (or especially) America — should be no exception. After all, the torturing of prisoners is illegal under international law for a very good reason. That reason is based on the moral principle that torture per se is cruel and inhuman.
For those who have missed the recent news coverage: in 2002 and 2003, prisoners who were deemed terrorists/al-Qaeda operatives were being held by the U.S. in prisons abroad. While imprisoned as enemy combatants they were subjected to "waterboarding" and other means of torture, in order to extract information about al Qaeda's organization and, in particular, about whatever plans the terrorist group might be hatching for more attacks on the U.S. of the 9/11 type.
The torture tactics were carried out by civilian operatives of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency — not the U.S. military — under legal justification provided by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). This happened during the Bush administration. The memoranda involved in the legal justification have recently been declassified and released by the Obama administration, which has also officially desisted in continuing such tactics.
OLC's legal "justification" of the torture was, this blog believes, a false and cynical attempt to hide the nature of what was about to be done. However, this blog realizes that others have a different opinion. That is why, this blog believes, we need a "truth commission" to adjudicate such issues.
This blog will highlight articles and opinion pieces culled from newspapers and elsewhere which deal with the issues surrounding the torture question in general. The opinions may or may not be ones this blog agrees with, so I will usually indicate my responses one way or another. However, I will try to play fair with opinions that disagree with mine, because I hope to encourage all Americans to think deeply about these issues, whatever side of the political fence they are on.
This blog will be guided by two general principles. First, as Rudyard Kipling put it, "Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right." This is why this blog disagrees with the strategy adopted thus far by President Obama: publish the original memos, cease perpetrating the torture, then turn the page.
In many situations, that would be the expedient thing to do. In this situation, no. Torture is too heinous a moral crime to be sequestered in a supposedly "over" past. Heinous moral crimes have to be not just settled, but settled right. Otherwise, they continue to fester.
The second principle: "The end does not justify the means." There can be little doubt that those who authorized, those who justified, and those who perpetrated the torture were sincere in their belief that the victims of the torture harbored secrets that they would cough up only under extreme duress. These secrets presumably concerned future terrorist attacks. The assumption was that heading off such attacks provided a moral (as well as legal) justification for torture and extreme duress.
That assumption, however, violated the principle that ends, no matter how good and just, cannot justify means, when those means are intrinsically inhuman and immoral.
Torture is, this blog insists, morally wrong under all circumstances. The torture of enemy combatants by any country — including (or especially) America — should be no exception. After all, the torturing of prisoners is illegal under international law for a very good reason. That reason is based on the moral principle that torture per se is cruel and inhuman.
For those who have missed the recent news coverage: in 2002 and 2003, prisoners who were deemed terrorists/al-Qaeda operatives were being held by the U.S. in prisons abroad. While imprisoned as enemy combatants they were subjected to "waterboarding" and other means of torture, in order to extract information about al Qaeda's organization and, in particular, about whatever plans the terrorist group might be hatching for more attacks on the U.S. of the 9/11 type.
The torture tactics were carried out by civilian operatives of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency — not the U.S. military — under legal justification provided by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). This happened during the Bush administration. The memoranda involved in the legal justification have recently been declassified and released by the Obama administration, which has also officially desisted in continuing such tactics.
OLC's legal "justification" of the torture was, this blog believes, a false and cynical attempt to hide the nature of what was about to be done. However, this blog realizes that others have a different opinion. That is why, this blog believes, we need a "truth commission" to adjudicate such issues.
This blog will highlight articles and opinion pieces culled from newspapers and elsewhere which deal with the issues surrounding the torture question in general. The opinions may or may not be ones this blog agrees with, so I will usually indicate my responses one way or another. However, I will try to play fair with opinions that disagree with mine, because I hope to encourage all Americans to think deeply about these issues, whatever side of the political fence they are on.
This blog will be guided by two general principles. First, as Rudyard Kipling put it, "Nothing is ever settled until it is settled right." This is why this blog disagrees with the strategy adopted thus far by President Obama: publish the original memos, cease perpetrating the torture, then turn the page.
In many situations, that would be the expedient thing to do. In this situation, no. Torture is too heinous a moral crime to be sequestered in a supposedly "over" past. Heinous moral crimes have to be not just settled, but settled right. Otherwise, they continue to fester.
The second principle: "The end does not justify the means." There can be little doubt that those who authorized, those who justified, and those who perpetrated the torture were sincere in their belief that the victims of the torture harbored secrets that they would cough up only under extreme duress. These secrets presumably concerned future terrorist attacks. The assumption was that heading off such attacks provided a moral (as well as legal) justification for torture and extreme duress.
That assumption, however, violated the principle that ends, no matter how good and just, cannot justify means, when those means are intrinsically inhuman and immoral.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
