Debating Obama's Release of the Bush Torture Memos
Bloggers on torture, the war on terror, British dentistry, Susan Boyle, and Ashton Kutcher
Our daily look at stories and topics that are lighting up the Internets:
Debating the Torture Memos
Yesterday, President Obama released Bush-era interrogation memos with detailed descriptions of CIA interrogation techniques. Obama also announced that he would not prosecute operatives who carried out the controversial interrogation methods. Suffice to say, the move is drawing more than a little controversy. The blogosphere takes sides:
Outrage: Bloggers—mostly conservative—are red hot. Conservative Jeff Emanuel thinks the interrogation techniques simply don't constitute torture. The meaning of "torture," he writes, has now been perverted "by those who have spent the last eight years on constant lookout for some greviance [sic] to hold against a president whose mere existence they resented." Bill Kristol thinks the left has forgotten we're still fighting a war. Conservative David Rivkin outlines the cost and benefit of the memos' release: one the one hand, the memos "are well-written, and feature careful and nuanced legal analysis" and "definitively establish that the Bush Administration did not engage in torture." One the other hand, "by describing in great detail the most assertive set of interrogation techniques that the United States has ever used — having determined them after a great deal of reflection and analysis to be legal — we have rendered them essentially unusable in the future." Conservative Dan McLaughlin is very, very worried. And liberal Bruce Fein is outraged that Obama won't be prosecuting the Bushies behind the interrogations: "Obama has set a precedent whitewashing White House lawlessness in the name of national security."
Applause: Dan Amira outlines reactions to the techniques, as does Andrew Sullivan here. In a separate post, Sullivan reacts to the documents with horror, praising Obama for the wise decision to increase transparency: "According to these documents, almost nothing that was done at Abu Ghraib was outside the limits agreed to by Bush -- and much of what was done at Abu Ghraib was mild in comparison." Conservative Rick Moran outlines the evolution of his thoughts on interrogation: "President Obama, required by law, released these memos and then appropriately gave a pass to the men and women who operated under their legal guidelines. Overall, he is showing a sensitivity to the issues that most of us on the right are not giving him much credit for." Conservative Ed Morrissey thinks the memos are filled with dubious legal acrobatics. Liberal Allison Kilkenny is surprised that anything could make the Bush administration look even more nefarious. Joshua Keating thinks that the Bush administration "completely lost touch with reality." And Stephen Stromberg argues that Obama is right to move past "the Bush administration's already discredited conduct. If there is a time for a Truth Commission, this is not it."
... Meanwhile ...
Cuba policy looms large as Obama heads to the Summit of the Americas... The British really do have terrible teeth... Fears rise of Pakistan becoming an Islamist state... Plus: Ashton Kutcher, Susan Boyle, and the new social media.
Reader Comments
Torture Memos
The argument against the "enhanced interrogation techniques" deemed legal by the Bush administration was over long ago. It was settled by Alberto Mora, former Navy General Counsel, when he said, "Cruelty disfigures our national character. It is incompatible with our constitutional order, with our laws, and with our most prized values. Cruelty can be as effective as torture in destroying human dignity, and there is no moral distinction between one and the other. Where cruelty exists, the law does not." Those who stand astonished to find that we would be concerned with our enemy's dignity, who would drag us back to a time before our Constitution and the demands of our Founding Fathers to preserve the dignity of every man, woman, and child, no matter what they might be accused of, they admit through their arguments for torture that they are cowards. Liberty or death? They choose safety. They would hide from the world, and why not? They scorn it, those who defend Bush. They spit on all that exists outside the borders of the United States and now they fear the reprisal they've got coming, but will (hopefully) never get because most Americans believe we truly do hold up a torch to the world. The light of that torch has always been our best defense, because there will always be other nations willing to fight to keep that light from being extinguished. Wouldn't it be ironic (and all too human) if we allowed our own least civilized citizens to put it out, right here at home?
What must be done...
Part of Obama's pragmatic philosophy on politics is based in transparency and accountability. He is doing the right thing by his own words by making these memos public. As for accountability well the public opinion will be the persecution of the ones who are responsible. We should not be spending resources on litigation at this time. The families and friends of the responsible parties will know their names and can clean their own laundry in anyway they choose.
To "Just My Observation":
How could Obama or anyone possibly diminish the respect of the United States more than George Bush Jr.?
Obama is doing everything in his being to restore the lost credibility, morality, and ethical standing of the United States over the past 8 years.
A true leader shows respect to those he/she intends to lead. Obama's ability to enter into any realm from domestic credit to global terrorism with a clear mind focused on cultivating beneficial consensus, attainable goals, and a pragmatic approach for all stake holders has been proven to this stage in his life and I believe will only become more evident. He cannot unravel 8 years of poor judgment in less than 4 months let along less than several years. Patience is a virtue and consistent progress towards a better tomorrow is essential.
To the neo-cons: War somewhere else is NOT Peace at home. When was there ever a wall constructed that did not increase the desire to knock it down, go over, under, or around. Were you ever told you could not do something and then tried your damndest to do it anyway? That is the American spirit!!! One that is free and driven to remain free.
We need to engage our allies and enemies on the world stage of diplomacy. We already know we have the strongest, bravest, most intelligent and equipped military in the world. Watch as we bring the likes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez out of their holes and let the world judge them for their short-sighted, hateful, and ignorant ways. How better to discredit those you wish to defeat? Allow them to defeat themselves by voicing their arrogant rhetoric to world.
Torture?
I have ONE criterion to decide whether or not ANY technique is torture: would I want to undergo the process or not?
I wonder how many of those Bush Administration lawyers tried the process themselves to decide if it was "legally OK or not"?
As for whether or not the techniques can be used in the future and related arguments? Well again, if I were confined, knowing what my captors/interrogators planned to do to me? Well I'd be MORE tempted to disclose information perhaps. Thank God I'm not a terrorist, real OR suspected!
Personally I think that deterrence has a place at this particular table. On which side you ask? Take your pick.
GK in Syracuse NY
advertisement
