Obama to Let Torturers Off the Hook?
by KevinNovember 18th, 2008
This, sadly, does not surprise me:
Barack Obama’s incoming administration is unlikely to bring criminal charges against government officials who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the George W. Bush presidency. Obama, who has criticized the use of torture, is being urged by some constitutional scholars and human rights groups to investigate possible war crimes by the Bush administration.
Two Obama advisers said there’s little - if any - chance that the incoming president’s Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.
Every time the discussion about this comes up, someone, probably many someones, is telling Obamam not to do this. They are telling him that if he does this, he will never get anything done in his first term. The Republicans will go completely apesh*t and defend their brethren with all their might. They will do everything humanly possible to keep his appointments tied up and to kill his legislation. The David Broders of the world will spend their column inches and pixels bemoaning how fall down the partisan rabbit hole and oh isn’t a shame that the Obama is trying to put people in jail who only wanted to help their country. Democratic leaders — some of who were too scared to stand up to Bush when they found out what he was doing and some of whom were too scared to exercise the oversight they should have — will be similarly, if more quietly, working to undermine the investigations. Lieberman will do everything humanly possible form stopping the inquiries, and since he apparently is going to keep his chairmanship, that would probably be quite a lot.
And going after torturers, Obama is being told, is surely a political loser. It will make him look vindictive, they say, and even soft on terrorists. And they may be right. I don;t think they are — I don’t think, outside of the radical right wing loons that there is a constituency for torture. I think that eventually, Obama would look good for having the courage to cleanse the country of the stain of it. I think that a full airing of the details would repulse peopel and turn the practitioners and order givers into pariahs. I think that Obama would have a much easier time getitng Republicans, worried about 2010, to go along with his plans.
But it would not be easy. There is no vocal, elite constituency opposed to the police state tendencies in our government and out nation. The FISA bill proved that. The NY Times and Fox News and the Washington Post all spoke with one voice on that matter, and I suspect they would speak with one voice on investigating torturers and the men who ordered the torture: no. Until that changes, bringing those people to justice will be difficult and I can see why a cautious person would think that ending the practices would be sufficient and that justice wold not be worth the cost of everything else on his agenda. Especially if there were many, many critical issues needing immediate attention.
It is still wrong, but it is not surprising. Until the elite culture is changed, until we force the default security posture in this country away form the twin notions of Empire and “kill them all and let God sort them out”, we are very poorly positioned to bring these people to justice. The political cost will always be seen as too high.
Without de-Nazification, the Nazis always come back.
Yep.
But you cannot call the torturers torturers in our climate; or at least that is the common, elite wisdom. And as long as that remains the same, as long as the elite don;t flinch at evil in the defense of their empire, it won’t seriously change.
The fear of grudge-holding and obstruction are somewhat legitimate, but ultimately this is a case of Obama’s moral resolve. Does he see torture as a big enough deal that it is worth pissing some mofos off? Undoubtedly, the conservative base would come unhinged, scream the sky is falling and determine all their delusional prophecies of a socialist, Muslim U.S. are coming true. Undoubtedly, some Bush loyalists in the Houses would take this as something of a declaration of war, and respond in kind.
However, the bigger issue here is the moral imperative; it is the big picture. To whose image of beauty should be constructing our practices? What is more important, attempting to restore in global position as noble, admirable, and committed to justice, or placating some myopically partisan House member who may one day have a deciding vote on a piece of legislation near and dear to Obama’s heart?
It’s time to issue some “tough love” on America and its policies, a buzzword those who Obama is worried about offending sure enjoy spouting off…
B-But, Kevin, you’re a mindless partisan hack who only criticizes Republicans and never Democrats! Remember? Also, we liberals are embroiled in a cult of personality and would never willingly directly criticize The One! Why do you insist on undermining these self-evidently true right wing talking points?
[In case it's not clear, I agree with you -- we HAVE to prosecute the offending parties, irrespective of party affiliation, because otherwise we're just conceding that the president -- and, indeed, anyone who does his bidding -- is above the law.]
“Why do you insist on undermining these self-evidently true right wing talking points?”
the check form the VLWC is late ….
I think if Obama went after everyone in a non-partisan fashion it would be a win-win for him. He would be seen as taking on the elite (helps with the little guy) while at the same time showing he will not be pushed away from doing what is right. If he doesn’t go after them, his administration will be proving they are cut from the same cloth as the Republicans and I don’t think that would work well for him at all.
I find it odd that liberals are bent out of shape over so-called “torture” of terrorists (that provided valuable information in protecting our country), yet have no problem at all electing a pro-death president who opposed an act to protect the life of infants born alive after botched abortions. Don’t even mention the terrorists who are released from Gitmo under pressure from democrats, only for them to return to Iraq and fight and kill our soldiers.
Torture pretty frequently provides inaccurate information, but far be it from me to oppose a well-crafted opinion extrapolated from watching Law and Order marathons on TNT or some shit.
And, in interrogation rooms, threats that “your white boy ass will be prime choice for Bubba” line is a truly infallible technique as well.
If you oppose abortion, fine. Even if you are scientifically illiterate enough to determine the difference between a person and a clump of cells, we’re still talking apples and kumquats.
So, forget abortion for a sec. You support torture? In all your delusional Jesus Stanhood?… Real Christian of you.
Once again, you establish yourself as a textbook case for abortion and a completely unworthy adversary when it comes to rational, intellectually-driven debate.
Pardon me, I have to go push some pregnant women down a few flights of stairs.
One question, Digg. Stanhood?
Stan: Def: irrationally obsessed fan.
Rough Synonyms: groupie, fanboy
Etymology: Eminem song of the same name about… an irrationally obsessive fan
My favorite irreverent hip hop blogger, Byron Crawford, uses it frequently and I’ve adopted it.
Okay, that makes sense, but I feel there should be no expectation whatsoever to have understood it without explanation.
But I am terribly amused by the implication of modern Christians driving around with Mary Magdaline tied up in their trunks and thinking that it was normal and what Jesus wanted.
Agreed.
But half the fun is trying to discern what random slang or abbreviations mean.
Also from Byron Crawford, I’m a fan of “weed carrier” as a generic term for random, untalented members of a celebrity’s entourage.
Once again, you establish yourself as a textbook case for abortion and a completely unworthy adversary when it comes to rational, intellectually-driven debate.
Why is it liberals think they are so intellectually superior, yet when met with opposing beliefs they almost ALWAYS resort to the lowest common denominator?
bob,
if “liberals” are at the lowest common denominator, why is it that we know more about church history than you do, and can tell that the crap you’re spouting is a classic case of the aphorism “history is written by the victors”?