In part I of this series, I outlined the problem. It is now confirmed that the United States was using torture on prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Prisons. Thanks to the Internet, these documents are readily available together with analysis parsing the legal contortions that Bush administration lawyers used in telling administration officials what they wanted to hear.
These memos could have been under wraps for all eternity. President Obama did not have to release them. He did so over the objections of some advisors. There is no way that John McCain would have released them had he won the election last November. McCain was old school: a veteran who defers to the military and thinks that "national security" is enough to justify anything. Obama is a former law professor who believes in brains over brawn.
That does not mean Omama deserves a gold medal. He does not want to prosecute Bush administration officials and intelligence workers who used torture against prisoners even though torture is illegal under U.S. and international law. Making matters worse, Obama used the mind of bullshit public relations language in justifying his decision. He said: "this is a time for reflection, not retribution."
But it's not about retribution. It's about upholding the rule of law. This country has long since taken the rule of law seriously. The last time it happened, it was 1998, when Congress impeached President Clinton for lying under oath about a consensual sexual relationship with an adult intern. Impeachment may have been a partisan affair intended to bring down a president that the Republicans hated, but at least the Republicans were able to do this on the basis that they were upholding the rule of law. When Republicans captured the White House in 2000, they set aside any concerns about the rule of law as President Bush routinely violated the law in a myriad of ways, from warrantless wiretaps in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to half-truths and lies in support of the Iraq war which violated the laws of war in that the war was not an act of self-defense but an aggressive attack.
The political class in this country does not know what to do about lawbreakers anymore, at least not the lawbreakers who wear silk suits and $200 neckties. There remains in this country a view that "disputes" foreign affairs are politcal, not legal, and that anything done in the name of self-defense or anti-terrorism is legitimate. That's how we can get away with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties in a war that never should have started.
Fortunately, not everyone holds the view that we can only look forward, not back, in dealing with the crimes of yore. The New York Times ran a few letters the other day that perfectly summarized what Obama should be saying. Let's read them together:
April 18, 2009 Letters The Uproar Over the C.I.A. and Torture To the Editor:Re “Memos Spell Out Brutal C.I.A. Mode of Interrogation” (front page, April 17) :
President Obama has decided that the C.I.A. employees involved in the torture of terrorism suspects will not be prosecuted and has justified his position by stating that “this is a time for reflection, not retribution.”
I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as Mr. Obama, who once taught constitutional law, would equate the pursuit of justice with retribution. It makes it appear as if his decision is one of political expediency.
If holding the C.I.A. operatives accountable for violating federal or international laws is retribution, then the prosecution of ordinary citizens for crimes is also retribution.
The president does not have the authority to be selective about who should or should not be charged with a crime, and he has made a grievous error by confusing the pursuit of justice with retribution or retaliation.
If the president reached his conclusion not to prosecute because the C.I.A. agents were merely following orders, I would remind him that that defense did not hold up at the Nuremberg trials. Those involved must be tried and held accountable regardless of the political consequences.
Seeking justice is moving forward, not backward. The whole world is watching.
Chase Webb
Gresham, Ore., April 17, 2009•
To the Editor:
The overall idea put forth on Thursday by torture apologists that the C.I.A. and other government employees were only following Department of Justice legal opinions and essentially didn’t know that waterboarding and other tortures they committed were illegal and wrong is complete nonsense.
Why was torture only whispered about throughout government in hushed, embarrassed tones? Why did the F.B.I. open a “war crimes file”? Why did the news of Abu Ghraib immediately shame all Americans?
It’s true, and proved repeatedly in social psychology experiments, that otherwise good people will tend to conform to authority. It’s true that people, under such circumstances, often fail to listen to their consciences. But don’t conflate this obedience factor with not being able to appreciate the wrongfulness.
In choosing to appease powerful interests by trying to sweep this horrible wrongdoing under the rug, President Obama undoubtedly had to overcome the pangs of his own conscience.
Coleen Rowley
Apple Valley, Minn., April 17, 2009The writer is the retired F.B.I. agent who exposed F.B.I. lapses that led to the 9/11 attacks.
•
To the Editor:
Expressing my personal views based solely on the public record, I believe that President Obama should not sanction impunity for high-ranking government officials who approved or facilitated the use of torture.
Although licensed legal or medical professionals who aided and abetted torture certainly should at the very least be disciplined for their role in war crimes and crimes against humanity, the principal focus of the needed criminal investigation should be on the policy-making officials and advisers at the highest levels of our government — the White House, the Departments of Justice and Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency — who authorized or enabled such criminal conduct. This would also include many lawyers who provided legal cover for lawlessness.
Using torture is not merely an ethics violation. It is also a domestic and international crime, and Judge Baltasar Garzón in Spain should not be the only one investigating these reprehensible actions with an eye to criminal proceedings. The United States should finally put its own house in order.
John S. Koppel
New York, April 17, 2009The writer is a career attorney (1981-present) on the appellate staff of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
•
To the Editor:
Call me naïve, but I found the recent publication of the torture memorandums strangely hopeful.
This is not to make light of the unimaginable horrors endured by human beings in our custody. We as a nation looked the other way and allowed the Bush administration to act out our darkest desires for vengeance on the bodies of other human beings. All of this is devastatingly shameful.
Of course powerful nations have routinely exploited their power through all manner of coercion and torture. What seems new — and it is here that I root my hope — is the decision by the Obama administration to release this information and thereby affirm international standards that transcend any one nation’s claim to power. One such standard is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(Rev.) Tom Martinez
Brooklyn, April 17, 2009•
To the Editor:
The director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, defends those under President Bush who justified torture, saying that what they wrote appears “graphic and disturbing” only because we are reading it “on a bright, sunny, safe day.”
The law does not care whether the sun is shining. Its very purpose is to be a constant yardstick by which we judge the actions of individuals — even in times of great anger, or great fear. Where individual moral compasses failed, the law stood firm: torture was, is and must always be illegal.
Given all the immediate problems at hand, perhaps the Obama administration is right not to burn its energy prosecuting torturers, but it certainly should not defend them.
Paul Cantrell
Minneapolis, April 17, 2009•
To the Editor:
Re “Report Outlines Involvement of Medical Workers in Abusive C.I.A. Interrogations” (news article, April 7):
The ethic of medicine is rooted in the basic idea that society can trust physicians to “do no harm.” If the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of health personnel in torture included physicians, this trust will have been threatened.
The A.M.A.’s Code of Medical Ethics clearly states that physicians must oppose and must not participate in torture for any reason, because participation in torture undermines the physician’s role as healer. For this reason, the A.M.A. opposes any direct physician participation in an interrogation.
In addition, physicians must help support victims of torture, strive to prevent torture, and report any instance of torture and coercive interrogation.
As the nation’s largest professional association of physicians, the A.M.A. stands ready to play a constructive role to ensure that our professional ethic is upheld and strengthened.
Rebecca J. Patchin
Chicago, April 10, 2009The writer, a medical doctor, is chairwoman-elect of the board of trustees, American Medical Association.
Some distinguished people wrote these letters. That should encourage the rest of us to put aside our insecurities about prosecuting government officials would would certainly argue in court that they were only trying to keep the country safe or that they were only following orders.
We can read about the crimes of the Bush administration and then turn the page or we can do something about it. Ignoring the problem allows it to happen again. Dealing with the problem responsibly allows us to stand up for our ideals, at least the ideals that most Americans claim to stand for when they proudly argue that this is a nation of laws, not men. It is also a nation of laws, not emotion. We have a choice. As I wrote the other day, it's like moving into a house to discover a body in the basement. Do you call the police, or do you look the other way and decide to move on? We can go after the criminals. Or we can allow the corpse to rot in the closet.
