Reasonable torture response
Saturday, April 25, 2009 at 3:57AM ARTICLE: In Obama's Inner Circle, Debate Over Memos' Release Was Intense, By R. Jeffrey Smith, Michael D. Shear and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, April 24, 2009
Personally, I like the idea of making the memos public. The charge that we're releasing info to al Qaeda is a bit much, because it's hard to believe this isn't all already well known to them (give them some credit).
For Obama, I see the memos' release as a way to obviate the truth commission route (full disclosure up front, and a decision not to prosecute ex post facto), which I do see as overkill.
So, to me, this is an inoculation strategy. Obama is done with torture, done with black sites, done with Gitmo and has clarified the rendition process somewhat while keeping it operative (we are going to want to send certain suspects back to their home countries; the big question will be whether or not it's done with a clear mind to performing torture by proxy, something Obama indicates will not be the case, but there's clear wiggle room there). He has also indicated a desire to get America back in line with the International Criminal Court. I judge the sum total of these changes as reasonable and warranted and sufficient at this time.
Reader Comments (8)
They said only what the W.H. wanted them to say. You cannot politicize National Security, although we know that's done by both parties, almost daily.
Nonetheless, it's not good for safety of the country.
The notion that if they can just get past the next mid-term election, all these guys will be free for all time just doesn't hold water. Delay will work as a tactic, but not as a strategy.
Maybe we need to let the cases mature and get the facts out. That's just good legal practice. After all, many of the principals are quite willing to proclaim that they did authorize torture and Cheney even has asked that his involvement be publicly documented. So, no truth commission, just the constant drip drip drip of information.
I understand that it will be a difficult and politicised process given the players involved, but fundamentally, why do you feel they should walk free?
Why is it sufficient to merely acknowledge that it happened? Sufficient in what regard?
Now I personally disagree with (a) and (c), but think that (b) is appropriate, and those hearings should be at least FOUO.
We have to send a clear message to future administrations that we are a country of laws and they still apply in times of stress.
I like the idea of bringing this all out in the open, but with an actual prosecution, not some "Truth Commission". In a prosecution the defense can subpoena whoever and whatever it needs to defend the "criminals".
Let's break this wide open. I want to know ALL the attacks that were prevented by our efforts to obtain information from the head choppers.
I think people would accept water-boarding and other techniques if they knew what the bad guys were really up to. Let's find out!