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."
Comments (72)
I can see both sides to this issue. However Obama risks being seen as ineffective as Ford if he doesn't do something to hold those who broke the law accountable. In my mind, Obama has to risk being politically unpopular in order to lead. Short of that he will be seen as being nothing but the same old politician as opposed to a real leader.- I hope there is an investigation so for once and for all everyone can see that what was done needed to be done and we can finally put the cry-baby left to bed.— jwad56
- Let's see, supposedly at least two attacks were thwarted by information gathered from Khalid Mohammed, saving a lot of lives. I suppose if they had been carried out and Americans killed, at least their widows/widowers could seek solace in our keeping our moral authority. Also, Obama probably realizes that if Bush and Cheney are brought in, it will be necessary to include Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller, Pelosi and Reid, as well as several other members of the Democrat leadership who were briefed on the matters and complicit in their silence. Sure, Rockefeller wrote a letter and stashed it in his desk, but he did nothing to try and stop whatever law was broken from being broken. And while we are at it, let's investigate the FDR administration for their war crime of detaining American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII. Isn't FDR revered in the Democrat wings as one of our greater presidents? Yet didn't he commit war crimes? Ya just gotta love the double standard.— tjhaol
- Waterboarding is 'pretending' to drown someone! When the terrorists took Daniel Pearl they cut his head off, see the difference Mr. Polman. The hard left (not all dems) always assumes America is in the wrong and everyone else is in the right. Obama won't do what Polman suggests, as now he will be in charge of protecting Americans and will need every tool at his disposal to do so. I predict he will keep Guantanomo open and he voted for the Patriot Act as well. Rendition was practiced by the Clinton admin. too! Mr. Polman and the hard left will give Obama the hardest time, not the weakened Repubs and this is the 1st salvo. Like Congress has nothing better to do, like fix the 'worst economy since the great depression', etc! Lets look to the future, instead of investigating people who were doing their jobs to protect Americans. And, what will happen when the CIA and FBI agents in the field stop doing their jobs for fear of being prosecuted in the future. Get real please! If you want to investigate something, investigate this financial meltdown and hold the people in charge of that criminally liable.— NEPhilly
- tjhaol - can you site info on the two attacks thwarted by information gathered from interrogation of Khalid Mohammed? Were they attacks against the US? ... BTW - the supreme court eventually weighed in on Japanese internment. it was wrong, and reparations were made.— still_independent
- NEPhilly: why do conservatives continually assial liberals for "moral relativism", but then when torture (and waterboarding is torture, view 'simulated' drowning on youtube) is brought up, the "they're worse than us" argument is acceptable. I thought we believed in absolute right and wrong? Aren't we supposed to be the "shining city upon the hill whose beacon light ...." ?— still_independent
- tom: this is all from the last thread, but I didn’t want you to miss it. After reading the ridiculously long paper you cited, and dredging up math skills unused for 20 years, I have two comments. First, the numbers you're quoting are for what they consider "exogenous" tax cuts. Basically, they attempt to reduce the INTENT of the tax cut. The ones they’re looking at could best be termed "philosophical" ones, i.e. they are made without respect to current economic conditions. The authors admit that cutting taxes, for example, to forestall or reduce a recession HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON GDP. Second, even accepting the fact that $1 in tax cuts increases GDP by $3, the tax cuts still wouldn’t pay for themselves, which has been the contention of several of us all along. Marginal EFFECTIVE income tax rates would need to be above the 33% level, which they aren’t, and that’s ignoring the fact that huge portions of the GDP aren’t subject to income taxes, anyway. Thanks for making our case. Perhaps you should have read more than a “tidbit”.— still_independent
- still, in waterboarding, does anyone die? Do they still have their head when it is over? I believe in doing whatever it takes to protect American lives. Cheney (I know he's a criminal) in an interview said Sheik Khalid Mohammed gave up secrets of future terrorist events that were then thwarted. I asked before, if you were President before 9/11 and you could waterboard someone to get info to stop it, would you? If I remember correctly you said, yes! Has your answer changed?— NEPhilly
- I am a Republican party officer (and ex-candidate) in the City. Without approaching the investigation part of the discussion, I disagree with some commenters' opinion on moral relativism, as still_independent put it. As said, just because someone else does somethign wrose, it does not excuse forsaking moral integrity. Are we to excuse Vince Fumo's lack of ethics because a similar politician in Russia is much more corrupt? We are Americans. We determine our morality, not other cultures and societies. We must walk above what others do. When darkness encroaches, it makes it even more important to firmly thrust forth our light and not dim it to hide in the shadows as well.— Adam Lang
- Cheney never stated what acts were stopped. And my answer to your question, no I would not torture someone for information no matter how many lives were at stake. As to this article, I am not sure what to make of it. One thing Polman does not point out is that Obama right now is seen as making nice with the outgoing administration, so as to have a smooth transition. By coming out and saying he would go after Cheney et al, he would be fanning the flames of those currently in power. My take is he is saying the right things now until he takes office -- when he has the power.— Master Dreamz
- NEPhilly: first, you didn't address my question at all. Yes, terrorists cut off his head. That misses the point. I thought we are supposed to be "better than them"? ... As you your question. Outside of the show "24", the answer is no. Here's why. It would never happen. Putting the moral issues aside (which I'm doing only for expediency), I have two practical issues with torture. The first is that it has been shown time and time again that you will get the answers that the turturee (?) thinks you WANT to hear. Second is verification. the only way to know if the information you receive is true is if you already have the information. In which case you don't need to torture.— still_independent
- Adam, was it 'moral' to drop the bomb on Japan to end WWII. Should we have prosecuted the pilots or President Truman? No, but did it save American lives and probably Japanese lives in the end, yes! When you are fighting an enemy that has no morals, that will do whatever it takes to hurt you and your citizens, rigid morality is a luxury you can not afford. I'll ask you the same question I asked still, if you could have stopped 9/11 by waterboarding someone would you? Time is yours:)— NEPhilly
- still, we are better than them (much to the hard left's chagrin)! We do not kill people or cut off people's extremities when 'torturing' them! We wouldn't even bother them (see the difference between them and us) if they weren't trying to do us harm first. You verify it by investigating it and seeing if it is true! You coundn't do that without the info in the 1st place! master, so Obama is lying now, until he gets in power and then he will act, I think he is better than that, but you can hold out hope! Our President and govt. did what they thought was right to protect you and your family! Maybe we can put Bush/Cheney/Rumi and Brownie while we're at it in Guantanomo, would that make you happy:) Maybe GWB should issue a blanket pardon of everyone involved to stop this nonsense. Sheesh!— NEPhilly
- Mr Lang makes alot of sense.......we can either walk above what others do or I suppose we can get done in the gutter with others. It may not be easy but if you lose your humanity what do you have left?— robo
- I am horrified at how many of you actually would torture other human beings. Once driving home from work, I heard an NPR story about WWII vets who were in charge of a German prison camp that housed scientists, a group they really wanted information from. One of the veterans told a reporter who was doing some research on our dealings with such prisoners that they got much more information from them when they developed relationships and treated them kindly than when they disciplined them. I just find it disturbing that there is such a cavalier attitude about the ends justifying the means.— NigeltheMastiff
Probably false statements about the effectiveness of extreme interrogation of Khalid Mohammed notwithstanding, it is known that torture doesn't work. When people are tortorued they tell everything including making things up. Acting on the truths hidden by all the fiction requires a great deal of time. You will either too late or the bad guys will have changed their plans.- NEPhilly: as for dropping the bombs on Japan, no it was neither moral nor necessary. It's a red herring that it cost less lives than a mainland invasion - many believed that a mainland invasion would not be necessary. Between the effective blockade and Russia's involvement in the war against Japan, many felt that a surrender was soon to come. Among those that felt that the bombings were unnecessary at the time were Dwight Eisenhower (General of the Army at the time), Douglas MacArthur, and Chester Nimitz.— still_independent
- Would I torture somebody to save a life, assuming I knew it would save a life? Yes, of course, assuming I had the courage to face the appropriate penalties (which probably would not be imposed if my decision was correct). But this individual specific moral decision is NOT the same thing as an executive authorizing his subordinates to torture, as a matter of policy. That is foolish and criminal. The question is silly and unenlightening.— liberal
- NE, the assertion that the Japanese or some other enemy "has no morals" is ridiculous. You can't really believe that an entire nation consists of bad people and our country consists of good people. That stupid notion is no basis for any kind of policy decision.— liberal
- Can we get the facts straight on waterboarding please? Records show it was used THREE OR FOUR TIMES TOTAL for the most violent murderers and terrorist known to man. It SIMULATES the effect of drowning but never actually puts the suspect in physical danger. Again, liberals, please get your priorities straight. I'm concerned about law-abiding citizens in the U.S. getting killed by terrorists. You're concerned about the rights of murderers. Really strange stuff here. It reminds me of the hardcore vegan who is all about "animal rights" but is strongly pro-choice. HUH??? You guys live on a different planet. Come to Earth.— chrissmith
- Nigel/still/etc., I can't get the thought of planes flying into the World Trade Center buildings out of my mind. When my then 5 year old saw on TV (before I turned it off) the people jumping out of the buildings, holding hands, ties flapping in the wind, he innocently thought they were going to be safe! It is very naive to think these people, who have 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven if they kill the infidels (me and you), will give up information if we treat them kindly. Remember, we are not cutting off a finger, a la 24, or worse cutting off their heads. The worst thing we do is pretend we are drowning them or incarcerate them humanely (and let them pray, eat muslim food and make them as comfortable as possible). How can you morally equate what we do to them, to what they would do to you or your family if they had the chance? It is incomprehensible to me!— NEPhilly
- How is the US morally superior because it does not cut off its' enemies heads but burns them to death instead? Which exit would you choose?— liberal
- lib, its not a stupid notion! People that strap bombs to themselves or their sons & daughters, then send them into a crowd of innocent civilians and blow themselves up have no morals that I recognize (same for flying planes into buildings, or trying to conquer the world)!— NEPhilly
- TJHAOL: FDR made mistakes, and Truman dropped the bomb, which means for 'Pubs that anything goes, as 2 wrongs make a right!! Good point, Conse!!— Talvenada
- To focus on Polman's points, rather than debating whether torture is a good thing or not, we have to start by acknowledging that it is a crime. However, it would not be surprising if these crimes by the Bush administration go largely unpunished. It's not cynical, merely realistic, to point out that war crimes generally go unpunished, except a few high-visibility offenses by low-level people like Lt. Calley. Nobody high official was ever punished for any war crimes by the winners in WWII, a point mentioned fruitlessly by some of the Nuremberg defendants. Whatever law really exists in this area is still rudimentary.— liberal
- Bush cannot be impeached for anything, as it would be revenge for Clinton; but Obama can be impeached by 'Pubs, as they--and only they--protect the constitution, the country, and the rule of law.— Talvenada
- NE, what is it about our enemies' actions in the trade center thing that was most immoral in your view? Burning civilians to death? Or using suicide bombers instead of bomber crews who have some chance to escape? I don't get your point.— liberal
- NE PHIL: ALL Arabs are evil-doers, and forfeit any and all human rights, while the greatest country ever has all rights they deem necessary to impact the world in our holy image only!!— Talvenada
- lib, I doubted that you would get my point on 'the trade center thing'! I know, we brought it on ourselves, right? The main problem was that we were not in a delcared war with them and it was a sneak attack on our civilians! In Japan, after another sneak attack and thousands of dead American soldiers, we gave them plenty of time to surrender, let their govt. know what we were goung to do and even dropped leaflets on both cities letting them know what was coming. Just like Israel is doing in Gaza right now. Do you not see the difference? I can not believe you are equating these two things, but I should have expected it!— NEPhilly
- It's folly to imagine wealthy, powerful people will be held accountable. That's not how the system works. BTW, on the "holiday hiatus" blog I mentioned the topic, but no one seemed intersted in replying.... Posted by Phrossty 10:49 AM, 01/02/2009 What difference does it make if the US commits torture? Allow me to quote Colonel Stuart Couch - Senior Prosecutor, Office of Military Commissions (2003-06): "God means what he says. And we were created in his image, and we owe each other a certain level of dignity -- a certain level of respect. And that’s just a line we can’t cross. If we compromise our own ideals as a nation, then these guys have accomplished much more than driving airplanes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon." «LINK» http://torturingdemocracy.org/ «LINK»— Phrossty
- 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
- NE, you've shifted ground on 9/11. Now it's the fact that it was a sneak attack that's so objectionable. I'm not trying to belabor the point; I'd just like to see some clear thinking on the life-and-death issues of war and peace. Just for the record, I fully agree that we should pursue al-queda into the ground and kill them. But the reason for that is not that they are immoral or have committed immoral acts; it's because their interests are incompatible with ours. Their acts of war are no different from those committed at one time or another by ourselves or our allies. Why is it necessary to dehumanize them in order to fight them?— liberal
- "Posted by tom - wilmington, de 05:11 PM, 01/12/2009 According to the internet details from several sites, Khalid Mohammed gave up information ..." I am interested in knowing your sources for this info.— NeverForgetBush
- One thing the terrorists can always count on is the stupidity of the leftists right here in America. I mean really come one! I think if given the choice I'd take waterboarding over what the terrorist did to Danny Pearl.
- swedey, off the mark as usual. Do you condone torture for OUR servicemen? I want you to tell all the parents and spouses and children that you condone their relatives being waterboarded, burned, beheaded, etc. Because if you condone us doing it to THEM, you condone THEM doing it to US. All you Jack Bauer fans out there who think "24" is the real world are no better than those you hate. So I can understand your love of an administration that tries to rule like a third-world dictatorship. You cry "Freedom!" but you don't have the first idea of the word. You want to be run by some all-powerful leader because you are afraid to think for yourselves. Anybody can act like lowlifes. It takes guts to take the high road, something this country used to take. Thanks to sheep like you bush-cheney has sullied this country for generations.— mike l
- lib, how have I shifted ground on 9/11? You are splitting hairs here. Is it wrong to kill civilians, for whatever reason? If immoral is the wrong word, then I'll use a different word. Their acts of war are different from ours as we do not kill civilians on purpose (and do all to avoid doing so) and they do so for greater effect! Can't you see the difference between them and us? Why do you agree we should pursue them into the ground and kill them? Just because of incompatible interests. The incompatible interest is they don't believe we have a right to exist on earth and worship our own God. It is the same thing with the Jews. They have no right to exist and worship their own God! How did I dehumanize them? IMO, they dehumanize themselves by their actions just as the Japanese and Germans did during WWII! If not immoral, what word would you use? My head is starting to hurt and I need a drink! Merlot anyone?— NEPhilly
- I’m amazed that such savvy posters as we have here can’t tell the difference between a campaign and actions once elected. God save us from a politician who once he got into office felt he had to do everything he said while campaigning (none do). I want someone who can be effective and can respond to current circumstances, move with the issues. Change I can believe in! In these most perilous times, I don’t want Obama and the Congress to waste time investigating the Bush baddies. There are benefits, to be sure, in holding people responsible. But it should have been done by the Congress while it was going on. Now, if we were not trying to get ourselves out of unnecessary entanglements, going after terrorists as we should have after 9/11, and trying to keep the world economy from collapsing and to find jobs for millions, maybe we could indulge our righteous side. We need as much bipartisanship as we can get. Going after the Bushies will be a major, major distraction and undermine that bipartisanship. Attack Obama for his actions before he’s in office if that makes you feel good. I’m just glad he’s smarter than 99 percent of the people. We need smart leadership now.— Djoko Pritza
- The thing that keeps getting to me about so much of this issue is the military people who have been and are currently involved. There seems to be a strong opposition to it all and the conservatives here can't push that off as being the rantings of lefty libs. There's been better than a half dozen really high ranking (like Generals) who have oppesed the way the war in general and the torture issue specifically have been handled. (the above quote from Gen Taguba) We count on these guys to keep it real in the middle of war and dismissing them as liberal loons or unpatriotic is an insult to them and doesn't make a strong argument.— JimR
- The US is extremely low when it comes to morals. 6 necessary wars, slavery, genocide against Native Americans, hundreds of thousands instantly vaporized at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 2-3 million SE Asians killed during Vietnam, 1 million dead and 4.8 million refugees in Iraq, Wall Street takes down our the world's economy, no action on global warming, running an empire and taking resources at gun point,......., and that's before you get to torture, rendition, Abu Gharib, the Geneva Convention, warrantless wiretapping, ...... Bush and his Republican enablers should be in shackles in the Hague. They are a lawless bunch from Nixon (Watergate and negotiating with the Vietnamese before the election, called treason), to Reagan (Iran Contra and negotiating with Iran before the election, called treason), to the Bushes (Iran Contra and the last eight years).— PA-TN
- Two questions for our Con friends: Wasn't McCain (no lefty loon) a strong opponent of torture until he decided it was in his political best interests to change his position? Why do you guys continue to spout that Libs are more interesting in "protecting" scumbags like KS Mohammed than our fellow citizens? As earlier stated, building a relationship with these creeps is the best way to go --- because it is what works. Once we get our information, send them through their due process (which has held up for hundreds of years), & then if found guilty, have them executed.— yobill626
- Mike I and all the other liberals- I condone waterboarding. Especially for Kaleid Muhammed. If you cannot see the difference between waterboarding and what the terrorists did to Danny Pearl then quite frankly you are not very intelligent.
- Pa-TN- there are jet planes that leave this country every minute of the day. Get on one and don't come back if you hate America so much
- Yobill626- Cause even when they are found guilty in our legal system the left comes to the aid of the condemmed. See Mumia abu Jamal and Tookie Williams. Low life scumb bags if you ask me but in leftists circles these crimals are what is know as heroes
- s-mike, it's easy to make the case against Muhammed but they've already released a few dozen from Gitmo because they had the wrong people. They were detained for years because we made a mistake. Over 100 inmates have been released from death row in the U.S. because we made a mistake. The laws are designed to also keep innocent people from being buried in the system. There are jet planes that leave this country every minute of the day. Get on one and don't come back if you hate the protections that are provided for you and others so much— JimR
- NE--according to al queda, their war aims are to get the US out of the middle east, not to destroy our way of life. Similarly, anti-Israel arabs want the end of the Israeli government, not destruction of the Jews. These are their stated objectives, and these are legitimate war aims based on the history of war throughout the ages. American objectives in the middle east are completely opposed to these aims, and therefore we have to fight al-queda and other arab groups if it comes to that. I don't see why it is necessary to claim that our opponents are less honorable than we are, or have secret objectives that are far more extreme than those that they claim. All of the above is based on the Bush administration idea that we are in a "war" with al-queda. Personally, I'm inclined to think that al-queda is a bunch of wackos, an arab version of the Waco or Ruby Ridge people, or Tim McVeigh. That is, they're murderers pure and simple and ought to be treated as criminals. It seems to me that this is actually a tougher view than the Bush administration took with its "war" rhetoric. It's also why the Bush people got themselves entangled with the torture issue, Guantanamo, etc.— liberal
- NEPhilly: so you're OK w/ electrical shocks, right? It usually doesn't cause permanent damage. And to focus on waterboarding misses the point. What about putting naked prisoners in freezing temperatures until they pass out? Is that OK too? ... Why is it the "law and order" right seems to selectively not care about the law when it suits them? Let's see. Warrantless surveilance. Well, we say it's legal, but we need retroactive protection for telecoms for following this "legal" practice. Gitmo - the only slim legal basis for the original lack of legal protections there (and the US Supreme court pretty much squashed it) is that it resides outside the US. All the "they're not citizens" stuff doesn't matter. If they were held in the US they WOULD have Habeus Corpus rights. What happened to the rule of law?— still_independent
- lib, in the Koran chapter 9 verse 5 it states that everyone that is not a muslim (infidel) is okay to attack anywhere in the world using any means. Some extremists muslims take this literally (and out of context) and I doubt most muslims believe this! That being said, I don't think killing civilians is honorable. Yes, we have killed civilians in the past in wars, but it was collateral damage, not the intended consequence of our actions! The extremists muslims do kill civilians as an intended consequence of their actions just to make a bigger splash. That is what makes them less honorable, even among more moderate muslims. Our country didn't even know we were at war, until 9/11. If you okay their tactics as being 'legitmate war aims', then why are we not at 'war' with them? I agree, they are a bunch of wackos, but when they attack our civilians it is our govts job to protect us and I am glad they did!— NEPhilly
- S-Mike - So for the sake of fairness, do you condone waterboarding General Petraeus if he were captured by Al-Qaeda? You're on record here as condoning waterboarding (a/k/a water torture). I'm wondering if it's ok for both sides to play by your rules. Anyone who compares illegal terrorist kidnappers' actions to rule-of-law military enforcement is using faulty logic to justify an indefensible position of "well torture is ok, so long as we do it, and we keep it 'tame' compared to our enemies' practices." Get real. Torture is immoral and the information "gained" is faulty at best and misleading at worst.— Phrossty
- still, I said I was okay with waterboarding, that is all! Why assume that I think the other things you metion are okay? Why is it that the 'hard left' wants to afford US citizens rights, to people that are not US citizens? We afford retroactive protection, because our own 'hard left' will try to prosecute Americans for trying to protect Americans!— NEPhilly
- I can't wait for Polman to write another article. My head still hurts from yesterday:)— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly - Did you watch the video? «LINK» http://torturingdemocracy.org/ «LINK»— Phrossty
- NEPhilly: you missed the point. If Gitmo was relocated to say, the AZ desert, they would have rights (not the same as our citizens, but rights none the less). The flimsy legal basis the Bush administration tries was that "well, even though Gitmo is under our control, it's not on sovereign US territory, so US laws and legal precedence do not apply" The supreme court, even with recent appointments, told them that this assertion was ridiculous. Again, enemy combatants held on US soil DO have a right to Habeus Corpus as well as other evidentiary rights. ... My concern? remeber Richard Jewel, the Atlanta Olympic Park bomber? We all KNEW he was the bomber. If that happened some years later (i.e. now), he'd be declared an enemy combatant, shipped off to Gitmo, denied council, and abused until he "confessed". I guess you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs.— still_independent
- Phrossty, I did and it is horrible! I am not proud that our country has to do this to keep us safe, but if we could stop another 9/11 by doing it, so be it. I just wish we had a video of what they did to Daniel Pearl and others. As for Petraeus, I'm sure they would do much worse to him, if he was captured! At least these guys, Osama's driver will attest, can go home with their extremities intact after what is done to them.— NEPhilly
- still, sorry I missed the point. My head is a little foggy as I am a little sick! Richard Jewel and Timothy McVeigh were US citizens and would have all the legal protections due to them as such, if they did their deeds now. Now that you mentioned omlets, I'm hungry:)— NEPhilly
- NEPhilly: Jose Padilla was a US citizen. Padilla was held for three-and-a-half years as an "enemy combatant" after his arrest in 2002. They eventually dropped the enemy combatant label rather than have it go under judicial review.— still_independent
- tom_in_wilmington: "Posted by tom - wilmington, de 05:11 PM, 01/12/2009 According to the internet details from several sites, Khalid Mohammed gave up information ..." I am interested in knowing your sources for this info." ... still no reply - figures - I knew that you were pulling crap out of your arse. No official CIA or gevernment reports indicate that KSM gave any useful info as a result of his torture (which is the usual outcome). Anyone who condones torture BY US military and their agents condones torture OF US military and their agents, for that is what torutre begets - more torture. Condoning, advocating and defending torture by US troops is Un-American, plain and simple. It is also disgusting.— NeverForgetBush
- S-mike, get your brain in gear, go do some research, and then tell me which of the facts I laid out are not true. You will also find that we’ve interfered in the internal affairs of other countries 70 times since WWII, 20 times in others' elections, overthrown 8 elections, assassinated a democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1952 - you do enough of that stuff and eventually someone gets pi$$ed and flies planes into your buildings. OBTW, thanks for the invitation to travel, but I’m not going anywhere. I’ve got over 30 years experience working for the military trying to keep this place free, with freedom of speech even for all the chest-thumping irrationals. But maintaining our individual freedoms does not mean that we have the freedom to wreak havoc, death and destruction on the rest of the world. And OBTW2, I’ve got a son in his fifth tour in Iraq, our most recent unnecessary and illegal war, sold to the public with lies, deceit and distortions. So for all you would-be torturers and apologists our there, his life and those of his people now aren’t be worth a plugged nickel if they get captured, because of our illegal, inhumane, and immoral treatment of prisoners.— PA-TN
- Here's the thing that makes me laugh (cause if I didn't laugh I'd cry) about Polman and his ilk - they have no objection when we use Predator drones to blow up houses in which Al Queda leaders (like we did to 2 of them last week) are staying and we kill them. Yet, when we "torture" them by waterboarding (which is "fake" drowining, and was only used on 3 terrorists), make them stand up for hours, don't let them sleep, turn the temperature up or down, etc. they whine like sissies and get morally indignant. Hey guys, I'd have more respect for you if were just as vociferous in your criticism and cited "international law" and the Constitution when we actually kill them instead of just making them uncomfortable for a while. Your are not only illogical, but hypocrites as well. Personally, I could care less if we "torture" them at Gitmo, which I don't think we are doing. Better we torture 10,000 suspected "terrorists" than to lose 1 American life.— erformc1
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
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.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- 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
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: