Truth or Dare -- by Jeffrey Rosen
Obama wimps out on torture.
Barack Obama is trying to split the difference on torture. He wants to move forward--no messy dwelling on the Bush-Cheney era--except that he'll look backward if forced. There will be no independent commission to hold top- ranking officials politically accountable. But, if Attorney General Eric Holder wants to prosecute the Bush lawyers who defended the legality of waterboarding-- John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury--well, the president won't stand in the way.
What does Obama gain by this approach? For starters, he has delegated the hard choice to his subordinate--and has left himself room to maneuver once more if the political winds shift further. But, unfortunately, in the process of punting, he has gotten the policy wrong.
The torture memos offend many people's moral sensibilities. They also offend standards for competent legal advice at the highest levels of government and were filled with contortions and shoddy logic. In his important book, The Terror Presidency, the dissident head of Bush's Office of Legal Counsel Jack Goldsmith has described the memos as tendentious, overly broad, and deeply flawed. But should bad legal advice be grounds for prosecution--even when it justifies bad policy? Or, more to the point, should government lawyers ever be prosecuted for dispensing advice?
To prosecute the lawyers for violating the federal anti-torture statute passed in 1994 to criminalize violations of the U.N. convention against torture, a prosecutor would have to prove that Bradbury, Bybee, and Yoo knew that the law clearly forbade waterboarding detainees and twisted the definition as part of a conspiracy to justify torture. In other words, you would have to prove that they knew they were giving incorrect legal advice but gave it anyway in bad faith.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 51 ( 2 removed by Jack E. )
We don't have change. We have the appearance of change along with a few small examples of change to get the crowd cheering.
...and (other than bellyaching about it here) you are doing WHAT about it?
So Thomas, is that a rhetorical question?
It seems the public who disagrees is relegated to the minimal role of "bellyaching."
If you held my view WHAT would you be doing about it.
Thomas I am headed to Washington D.C. for a protest in a few weeks would you like to ride along to see what active people in their government do?
People that are afraid to stand up for their rights do not deserve any.
Your talking to a windbag Robert that thinks hiding in a closet and submitting to political hacks will solve everything.
Attending protests in Washington is ONE way for citizens to make their voices heard, Jack E.
It is NOT the ONLY way.
Do you believe you have a monopoly on "defending the Constitution"? You label those who disagree with your ideas "GOP attack dogs," "trapped rats," "windbags," etc.
The Constitution you so vigorously "defend" not only grants YOU freedom to believe whatever you believe, but also OTHERS to believe what THEY believe.
Read that part, right?
Likewise, you are free to express contempt for others and their beliefs while exalting yourself and yours. This is hardly a novel approach, but for winning supporters and influencing people in constructive ways, it has a less-than stellar-track record.
Good luck with that.
> It seems the public who disagrees is relegated to the minimal role of "bellyaching." If you held my view WHAT would you be doing about it.
What I AM trying to do -- a little here, a little more there -- is to try to REDIRECT some of the energy being put into these harangues with each other.
If people instead spoke their minds to the politicians, committees, boards of directors, etc. it CAN spark a change of course.
It's a long shot, but (to paraphrase Wayne Gretzky) you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
That's what I'm trying to do as well Thomas -- "a little here, a little more there."
a) Not that I characterize these as "harangues," but they don't take all that much energy.
b) You are presuming I haven't done what you are suggesting. What makes you think I haven't taken that shot?
Thomas you have not expressed any opinion other than your wish to make personal attacks against me. This article does not deal with making personal attacks on posters.
> b) You are presuming I haven't done what you are suggesting. What makes you think I haven't taken that shot?
Robert, I'm no mind reader. I do my best to understand what other people's WORDS mean, but I make mistakes.
If being "relegated to the minimal role of 'bellyaching'" is NOT your view, please forgive my drawing that inference, given that the 5 words immediately following were "If you held my view..." which otherwise would seem to be lacking an antecedent.
Of course, it is POSSIBLE to be politically active DESPITE holding that view. It's just -- UNUSUAL.
Robert, I promise to pay sharper attention and stick to what you actually WRITE.
Thank you Thomas, that is unless I'm not paying sharp attention and sticking to what yo actually WRITE, and missed the sarcastic aspect.
Seriously... thanks.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to you, Robert.
I can be a sarcastic SOB, no question.
Obama is doing the right thing ModernDay? Where is this taking place? In which neocon policy Obama supports is the right thing? Maybe expanding the pipeline war into Pakistan where a high death toll of innocent people are being murdered by American drones so they can clear the path to Eurasia? Or maybe giving our tax money to corporate thieves that destroyed the world's economy along with ours? Or maybe its Obama playing crony with the stock market and deciding to take over a private auto maker that he does not have the power to do on his own?
You should have said Obama is doing what he was told to do instead of saying Obama is doing the right thing.
Obama is putting the finishing touches on what Reagan and Bush started.
If obama were truly "in the same league as Bush" he would NOT make HIS responsibilities as Chief Executive his primary focus, delegating the question of whether laws were broken to the JUDICIAL branch of government -- where such decisions BELONG.
So Thomas why using your reasoning why did Obama say he did not want to prosecute the war crimes but would rather sweep the rule of law under the table.
The Chief of our government's Executive Branch is leaving questions as to what crimes were or were not committed to the Judicial Branch. I'm no Consitituional scholar, but I think that's where such matters are supposed to be decided.
I don't know why so many people in America seem to b soe brain dead that they can't see their own downfall on the horizon.
> I don't know why so many people in America seem to b soe brain dead...
Deemphasis on education. Anti-intellectualism in general.
Role models like Joe the Plumber and The OctoMom.
They not only let themselves be conned out of their money and future, but many cheered on those who screwed them.
How many GOP attack dogs will be still supporting Bush when it is their turn to watch their children suffer and die.
> he obviously supports the GOP attack dog policy over the people that elected him
"Obviously"?
Who are "the people that elected him"?
Thomas why don't you show something worth reading like proof to back your phony do nothing attitude?
Was Obama elected by the public because of the change he promised? Or was it another scam like the way Bush was placed in office?
Obama is continuing the murderous attacks started by Bush something he promised to stop, now why don't you show some proof that I am a liar or just shut up and keep playing that who cares attitude.
Never suggested you were "a liar" -- that's YOUR self-assessment.
Better to have a "phony do nothing attitude" than a GENUINE one.
Better to have Obama than Bush.
Better to stop acting like a trapped rat and start defending your constitution while you still have one.
You keep on "defending your constitution" and I'll keep on defending mine.
Thomas I do not have any idea what constitution you refer to defending, the one I defend is the one that defines the American government.
Thomas you seem to have a personal vendetta going against me, why I do not know but it ends here. You will stop attacking me and post to the thread or you will not post any more.
I do not care if see things different than me but it is the last time you make a personal attack out of it.
Jack, my reference to "defending your constitution" was merely a direct quote from YOUR comment (Jun 9, 2009 @ 12:51pm) above.
Perhaps my using YOUR words created some confusion. As an individual citizen, I would NOT presume to possess this document. It's OUR Constitution.
Rightly or wrongly I find myself to be more pragmatic on this issue than either of you. However I really have no intention on getting into that here and now . . . instead I want to express an admiration for those who seem more committed to their principles than they do to a candidate.
Hi Shaun its good to meet someone that doesn't seem to play the politically correct game.
Obama was our last hope to bring us out of the destruction caused by Bush and the neocons and all he has done from day one is continue all Bush policy right down to keeping Bush criminals in power.
You have 4 months of the former to compare with 8 years of the latter.
What had Bush accomplished by May 2001? He took office in a period of relative stability.
Obama has been in office long enough to continue Bush neocon policy and expand the blood for oil war into Pakistan.
Obama and Bush are two of a kind and playing politically correct will not solve what is about to fall on America.
> Obama and Bush are two of a kind...
Your opinion.
You would have preferred...?
I would have preferred Obama keep his promises of change he was elected on.
Which dictator would you prefer?
As fellow passengers on this cruise, we can complain about this or that not being EXACTLY as described by the travel agency.
For example, the brochures boasted that the ship was "unsinkable."
Our Captain is seeing icebergs up close now, and they are a LOT bigger than most imagined. He's also learning that what can be SEEN is NOT the full extent of the danger.
As he ponders these things, he gets to know more of his passengers as PEOPLE. Things begin to weigh on him: the distance from land, the number of lifeboats, how cold the water is.
He flips through one of those glossy brochures, which DOES promise a lot of things, he now realizes, that are not in his power to deliver. But those he CAN deliver, he resolves to do his best.
Regardless what the brochures say, he is NOT betting that this ship is unsinkable. His priorities change.
So, which is better? To be a captain whose course changes spill the champagne and rearrange the deck chairs, or be remembered as the one who stayed the course but lost the ship?
Obama SEEMS to be listening. thinking, learning, and explaining -- in SHARP contrast to many of his predecessors.
If his administration is falling short of your expectations, tell THEM!
Obama campaigned on change and then keep the same illegal wars and torture camps open as well as sucking up to corporate cronyism with the banks and stock market. Their will not be any change coming until it comes by the world saying is has had enough of American greed and treachery and does something about it.
> Their will not be any change coming until it comes by the world saying is has had enough of American greed and treachery and does something about it.
What, General Motors going bankrupt isn't enough "change" for you?
One part of "the world" claimed to have "had enough of American greed and treachery" and indeed tried to "[do] something about it" on September 11, 2001.
Are you convinced that -- had 9/11 happened on THIS administration's watch -- that Obama would have advised us to keep shopping (or "the terrorists win") and laid plans to invade Iraq?
That name General Motors has change to Obama motors. Tell me Thomas what part of the constitution gives the president the authority to bypass congress and take over a private corporation?
"Federal Motors" or "American Motors" would be more apt nicknames.
Read the timeline.
Speaks volumes about your attitude toward ONE MAN that you would try to pin this on HIM ALONE.
Your right Thomas it was my decision to make Obama into a wannabe dictator.
A significant improvement over the Bush administration, nonetheless.
Just my li'l ol' opinion, of course.
Watching Obama back down on so many important issues makes me sad beyond belief.
It is a shame Deb , Obama was the last chance we had to head off the destruction that is headed our way very soon.
Obama was NEVER a chance - it's been orchestrated. He had the "it" factor for which the sheeple fell.
He didn't wimp out - he had NO intentions of doing anything different.
> He had the "it" factor for which the sheeple fell...
No danger of that happening to anyone in THIS discussion.
Yes, Thomas, had 9/11 happened on the Obama watch, NOTHING would be done differently. They had the Patriot Act ready to go - hundreds of pages. No legislator read it (except Ron Paul) and it was designed to steal more of our freedom, Dept. of Homeland Security soon followed and now controls all the FEMA camps, the policing of the people, and will take away the rest of our freedoms - in the name of "security".
If you look at all the laws, the executive orders, and what is now happening under your nose, you will see it is not a Democracy but a Dictatorship. People can keep fooling themselves, but just look at the evidence.
We are NOT a Democracy (even though they elude to "Democracy"; by our Constitution, we are supposed to be a Republic. The reality is we are lead by Fascists and have been for years.
With all that is going on, the only thing we know for SURE is this - we are no longer a Republic as years of abuse has it destroyed - including Obama. We are not a Democracy as the will of the people has been totally ignored, time and time again. Some say Socialism, which is obvious. We've been a Democracy with a dictator, now we are into fascism with a dictator.
...and a side order of "socialism." ("with a dictator")?
:-D