Bauer versus Brandeis
The moral downside of cleansing the past
Bauer versus Brandeis
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Barack Obama, in his appearance yesterday on ABC News, spent much of his time focusing on the economy. But I was most struck by an exchange that occurred late in the interview, when host George Stephanopoulos brought up the sensitive issue of criminal accountability in high places.
Stephanopoulos, quoting a question posed by a citizen on Obama’s website, asked whether Obama is prepared to appoint a special prosecutor “to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture…”
This question has been kicking around for a long time, justifiably so. There is abundant evidence that the Bush regime, in its embrace of abusive interrogation techniques, trashed the rule of law. This is not a “liberal” perspective. Way back in May 2004, the deputy commanding general of the Third Army, Lt. Gen. Antonio Taguba, investigated the incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison; in a 53-page document, he cited “egregious acts and grave breaches of international law,” and concluded with this whopper:
“There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
And who ordered the use of torture - specifically, the illegal techniques devised by communist Chinese agents during the Korean war? A new bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee, released last month, concludes that certain high-ranking Bush officials – including former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, his legal counsel William Haynes, and potentially vice presidential legal counsel David Addington – took various actions that “led directly” to the use of interrogation methods that violated federal and international law, starting with the Geneva Conventions.
Indeed, behind the scenes, some of the most vociferous critics of the Bush regime were the military’s legal advisers. As evidenced by their own memos, they repeatedly protested the techniques such as waterboarding on legal and moral grounds, and, in some cases, they condemned the abuses on pragmatic grounds. Alberto Mora, a former Navy general counsel, told the Armed Services Committee that our treatment of the prisoners had worked mostly as a recruiting tool for the enemy, thus contributing to the number of U.S combat deaths in Iraq.
Given this track record, it’s no surprise that Eric Holder, the Obama team’s nominee for attorney general, has offered some tough talk about the need to hold the Bush regime accountable for its actions. A few months ago, prior to being tapped for the AG job, Holder said that “our government…authorized the use of procedures that violate both international law and the United States Constitution. We owe the American people a reckoning.”
That’s what Stephanopoulos basically asked Obama: Will we see such a reckoning? In the interests of justice, and in the interests of deterring errant behavior in the future, will the Obama administration name a special prosecutor who would hold Bush bigwigs accountable, and thus demonstrate that nobody is above the law?
The answer, apparently, is no.
Obama, in response: “We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue…And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices, and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that, for example, the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."
More Obama: “My instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn’t mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law that they are above the law. But my orientation’s going to be to move forward…My general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed (to) looking at what we got wrong in the past.”
It doesn’t take a genius to read between those lines. As I have mentioned repeatedly, Obama is a savvy politician, and he has clearly decided that any attempts to hold the Bush team criminally accountable for its behavior would clash with his own political and governing priorities. He has calculated that plumbing the past would risk triggering new rounds of partisan warfare – thereby undercutting his goal of nurturing a post-partisan, problem-solving era in Washington. And given the policy challenges on the horizon – economy, energy, health care, and so much more – Obama clearly sees a special prosecutor as a luxury he can ill afford.
Perhaps that’s the best calculation, given our current dire circumstances. Cleanse the past, focus on the future. That’s what Gerald Ford did in 1974, when he pardoned Nixon; his goal was to preemptively end “our long national nightmare,” and get Americans to look forward (which we generally prefer to do anyway, given our penchant for historical amnesia). What Obama suggested, in his ABC News interview, was that we would symbolically rebuke the Bush team “moving forward,” by returning to the interrogation and prison-handling practices that conform to international law.
But, as a number of despairing legal experts have pointed out, there is a moral price to be paid for letting the Bush team off the hook. Jonathan Turley, the noted law professor at George Washington University, framed the issue in several remarks last month: “It’s the indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime…It is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing.” And Dahlia Lithwick, a legal scholar and commentator at Slate, argued the other day: “We don’t protest that ‘it’s all behind us now’ when a bank robber is brought to trial.”
Obama has probably judged the politics of the situation correctly. The average citizen is far more focused on keeping a job than going after Bush's people, and if the latter is assigned a low lower priority, so be it. Besides, on the Fox network, Jack Bauer is back on 24, and no doubt he will soon be re-instructing the masses on the efficacy of extreme interrogation. After all, in our contemporary culture, Jack Bauer is far more famous than Louis Brandeis, the legendary Supreme Court justice who once warned that “if the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
Tal, Just the Arabs that attack us for no reason! I know the bad christians are at fault and we brought it on ourselves. We were just minding our own business before 9/11. You guys/gals are literally making me physically ill defending these people. I'm going to go home and kiss and hug my family and thank God! Can I still thank God or is that terrible too?— NEPhilly- According to the internet details from several sites, Khalid Mohammed gave up information concerning the following: Plot to blow up Brooklyn Bridge, plot to strike a marine base in Dijbouti, plot to hijack planes and blow them up over the Atlantic, among others. So I guess his harsh interrogation did prove fruitful in possibly saving lives. Unless you guys and gals would rather have had those possible attacks been successful, then you could tell people you did everything possible to stop the attacks according to the Army Field Manual of interrogation, which bars interrogators from making the prisoner from being made uncomfortable.— tom - wilmington, de
- robo, I would rather lose my humanity and still have my wife and children than keep my humanity and bury them as a result of an attack that could have been prevented. If that makes me, as Mr. Lang suggests, less of a person, than I guess I'll just have to live with that and remember it when I see my children grow old and have my grandchildren for me and my wife to spoil. Oh well, there goes that 5 seconds of sleep.— tom - wilmington, de
- Yeah, those Japanese during WWII really had morals. They were so humane to the prisoners on the Bataan death march. How can we confuse that treatment with immorality.— tom - wilmington, de
- NE PHIL: I agree that ONLY those who attacked us, but that's not the case. An enemy combatant is anyone who even remotely is suspected, which means if someone dimes an innocent person to settle a score, that person--of which there are many--ends up w/ a life sentence to protect Americans. 70% of those jailed for life are getting screwed, labeled as the worst of the worst, and for who? A bunch of holier-than-thou flag wavers, who are superior to the evil-skinned disposables. ................. Sorry, but innocent 9/11 victims are not more valuable than innocent Arabs jailed for life to justify safety w/ an easy answer, when more thought would produce better results. Just to warehouse people is not the only answer that was available.— Talvenada
- People who argue waterboarding is not torture (NEPhilly, listen up) undermine their credibility -- on all issues. Let's see, if you yank out my fingernails but I know they'll grow back, then that can't be torture? NEPhilly, drop your silly argument.— Djoko Pritza
- Tal, I just read that Osama's driver was released from prison in Yemen (i think it was yemen) after being released from Guantanomo and serving out his sentence in a Yemeni jail(is he part of the 70% that got screwed?). So it seems some of them didn't get a life sentence. Most were picked up off the battle field not dimed out by a jealous neighbor! Also, at least they have a chance to get released, the 9/11 victims have no chance of that! And finally, over 50 million muslims/arabs are now free and able to live their lives as they please. That doesn;t sound like we are condemning all of them as evil doers, does it?— NEPhilly
- Djoko, I didn't say waterboarding wasn't torture! I'm saying I'm glad we did it to Kalid Sheik Mohammed and others that would do us harm and that no one should be prosecuted over it. I can't believe that all you have to say about this thread?— NEPhilly
- Bush and Cheney probably committed war crimes, but will never be found guilty of same. «LINK» http://torturingdemocracy.org/ «LINK»— Phrossty
- liberal blather is just too funny. Let's see mmmm. Waterboard Kaleid Muhammaed and save thousands of lives or not and make the American press and leftists happy. Once again the left in this country are the most useful idiots for our enemies. Good day people -nuf said
- So, S-Mike, torture is OK as long as it produces the results you want? I'm sure Hermann Goering would agree with you. 'Nuff said.— Phrossty
- NE PHIL: Bin Laden's driver was 1 of the TOP 10 we jailed, which included the 3 we water-boarded. ............... If we had a permanent 'Pub POTUS--8 yrs. of McCain & 8 yrs. of Palin--you would be safer w/ Gitmo and other prisons to hold every single arrested Arab w/o end.— Talvenada
- PHROSSTY: Didn't you see the memos that torture is ONLY that in case of death or organ failure, that is not a mistake or accident, and that means NONE EVER!!!— Talvenada
- NEPhilly earlier today: "Waterboarding is 'pretending' to drown someone!" NEPhilly after a day of verbal torture by other posters: "I didn't say waterboarding wasn't torture!" So, are you saying waterboarding is only pretend torture (which would be a silly argument) or are you saying waterboarding is torture but you're glad we do it (which would mean you believe any torture is OK if we think we can get what we want)? Once we get this monumental issue squared away, I can move on to other issues. But we need to know where NEPhilly stands!:)— Djoko Pritza
- Djoko, I didn't say it wasn't torture, or pretending to torture, I said it is 'pretending to drown someone', am I wrong? Why if you say okay to waterboarding do you have to equate that with okaying all kinds of torture? Why can't you just say okay to waterboarding, period? As I stated above, 'I'm saying I'm glad we did it to Kalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, and others that would do us harm and that no one should be prosecuted over it'. Does that clear up my position? Tal, his driver was one of the top 10 and wasn;t held without end? Those terrible Repubs must be slipping:) I guess he fell through the cracks!— NEPhilly
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
