Vengeful Torture Crusade of Leahy and Levin Will Come to No Good
By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
On Meet the Press this Sunday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration is weighing whether to release additional CIA memos from the Bush era on "enhanced interrogation." Similarly, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Defense Department will soon be releasing an additional 21 photos showing instances of alleged prisoner abuse at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What possible good can come from this?
Even though the president made clear that he was opposed to any sort of independent commission holding a public review of the issue, some on the left continued to call for exactly that on the Sunday news shows:
"I know some people say, 'Let's turn the page.' Frankly, I'd like to read the page before we turn it," [Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy] said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
He said he wasn't seeking vengeance. "I want to know who was it who made the decisions that we will violate our own laws; we'll violate our own treaties; we will even violate our own Constitution," he said. "I want to know why they did that; what kind of pressures brought them to write things that are so off the wall; and to make sure it never happens again."
Mr. Leahy said he agreed with the idea of releasing more memos and information from the discussions on interrogation techniques.
Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, echoed Sen. Leahy's comments. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, he said, "I think an independent person ought to make assessments on all Americans as to whether or not we committed crimes or not."
A clear-eyed view from overseas, from Clive Crook in the Financial Times: "The drive for prosecutions is a furiously partisan project. The Democratic left is plainly out for revenge more than for justice—and Mr. Obama is wavering in the face of their rage. Already, little hope remains of a bipartisan approach to the myriad problems that confront his administration. If the president fails to get a grip on this new controversy, the prospect of any such co-operation will be nil."
Crook is right: Of course Leahy is seeking vengeance. Carl Levin wants to widen the revenge-taking to making "assessments on all Americans," which I guess means each of us is about to be hauled in for questioning. Leahy says he wants to know who "made the decisions." It's obvious to anyone who's been following the news who the decision-makers were: high-ranking officials across the Bush administration with the approval of leaders in Congress. Leahy wants to know "why they did that." Again, it's obvious why—because we were under attack from terrorists on American soil and had every reason to believe the attacks would continue. Leahy wants to know "what kind of pressures" they were under. Even I can answer that one: They were under extreme pressure to protect innocent American citizens from further attack. There wasn't one of us who thought another attack wasn't imminent.
We can all remember the blame game that began in the days right after 9/11 ... the accusations relating to U.S. forces letting Osama bin Laden go years earlier, the allegations that airport security might have been tighter, the questions about the clues and warnings that went unheeded by the administration. No one wanted to look like they were the weak link that allowed this to happen. And no one wanted to be unprepared when it happened again. In Washington, D.C., we all stocked up on extra food and emergency supplies, and we listened to all-news radio all the time. Those were dark days in the weeks and months after the terrorist attacks—easy to forget now, in the light of day.
The president has outlawed the future use of waterboarding. That's fine. Yet the calls for prosecution keep coming and the memos and photos continue to be released. The long-term effects of this "drip-drip-drip" are countless: the loss of bipartisan cooperation on many issues, the damage to our relations with our allies, the message sent to our enemies, the effect on our soldiers, CIA agents, and national security team...the list goes on. Whether you agree or disagree with the use of "enhanced interrogation," again, what possible good can come of all this?
- Check out our political cartoons .
- Read more by Mary Kate Cary .
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog .
- Read more about torture .
Tags: CIA | Patrick Leahy | Carl Levin | torture | Robert Gibbs
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (14) | Print
Reader Comments
Definition of Torture
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines torture as "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing or wounding) to punish coerce or afford sadistic pleasure.
Enzo of In has it right. By this definition the US did not approve the Torture on any prisoners. Some Americans my not approve of the methods used, and they have a right to protest those methods. But to advocate a politically motivated witch hunt against those who made decisions that one disagrees with is dangerous and unproductive. Some may reject the use of any technique other than polite asking, and some my approve of real torture. I beleive both the Bush administration and Obama are trying to find the correct balance between trying to protect the American Public and humane treatment of prisoners. They just don't agree on where that balance is.
The American public is fickle. Another terrosits attack in the US will have most of the country screaming for blood and the heads of the politicians who are seens as not doing enough to prevent it.
Ends and Means
I'm glad a few folks in these posts have focused on the main point, and haven't been side-tracked by apples and oranges comparisons. As a 23-year U. S. Air Force veteran, and current AF civilian employee stationed overseas, I've always been taught (and firmly believe) that, as a moral and just nation "we don't do torture". Yes, even if it resulted in some questionable answers. We don't do torture, and I hope we never do. If the moral values of America have really declined to that point, my opinion of what America stands for is way too optimistic.
Torture??
We worry about what kind of torture happens to those we suspect of evil doing?? What kind of torture is done to babies with abortions? Or does President Obama think that going after those that approved torture to those held as terrorists is OK? But we don't go after those who approve of and do abortions?
advertisement
