Andrew Cohen today takes Barack Obama to task for failing to hold people responsible for torture during the George W. Bush administration, which I think is correct, and assigns some blame to Obama for the GOP pro-torture position, which I think is too strong.
Cohen believes that Obama should have convened a Truth Commission back in 2009. I agree. It would be a very good thing to get on the record, as clearly as possible, whatever intelligence gains -- and deficits -- resulted from torture during the Bush years. I'm fairly confident that torture was a net loss just in its immediate, direct effects, and more so if the indirect effects of damaging US prestige are counted, but I'd be more confident about that if we had a full accounting. (For related points, see Adam Serwer today).
But realistically, there is exactly zero chance that any Truth Commission could change the overwhelming fact that the former Republican Vice President of the United States is going to be out there advocating for torture, and that without something to trump that the odds are very high that a whole lot of other GOP opinion leaders will chose Cheney's position over Barack Obama's, at least as long as Obama is in the Oval Office.
A new Republican president would instantly marginalize Cheney, and if that president chose to publicly re-assert the traditional American opposition to torture then there's a good chance that favoring torture would rapidly become a fringe position again. Until that point, there really is only person who has an excellent chance of marginalizing Cheney and Cheneyism: George W. Bush. If Mr. War On Terror was to declare that torture didn't work, and that it was all a horrible but well-intentioned mistake, I think there's a pretty good chance that most GOP politicians would go along.
That was the thinking, I assume, behind Andrew Sullivan's wonderful open letter to Bush last year; it's the thinking behind my suggestions that Obama issue a blanket pardon for Bush-era torturers, because that might change the incentives for Bush. But in both cases there's really nothing that Obama can do to force the issue, just as there's nothing that Obama can do to get Dick Cheney himself to accept the traditional consensus view. Andrew Cohen should recall that there was a Congressional committee on Iran-Contra, and it totally failed to get Republicans to accept the facts of the case, primarily because the Republicans on the committee -- led by none other than Dick Cheney -- dissented. And while Cohen argues that the 9/11 Commission put conspiracy theories about that event in fringe territory, I don't think that's right, either. Those conspiracy theories were always on the fringe, but the 9/11 Commission did nothing to quiet those conservatives who believed, for example, that Iraq was behind the terrorist attacks.
So, yes, blame Obama for not addressing an issue he should have addressed, but do remember that controlling what the opposition says and believes is far beyond the powers of the presidency.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
An article in the summer 2010 issue of PS points out that public opinion weighed against torture throughout the Bush years. That shifted only in 2009, when Cheney started attacking Obama for undermining US security by stopping it.
ReplyDeletecontrolling what the opposition says and believes is far beyond the powers of the presidency.
ReplyDeleteReally? But what if Obama and the 111th Congress set up a Truth Commission with subpoena powers? What if their investigation led to indictments? What if, after all was said and done, Dick Cheney found himself facing trial for war crimes?
I think that would have a pretty chilling effect on "what the opposition says," don't you?
But what if Obama and the 111th Congress set up a Truth Commission with subpoena powers?
ReplyDelete.
Why would the Congress ever do that? If they did, various congresscritters would be the first ones subpoenaed. Remember, Pelosi was there when the CIA career bureaucrats laid out their waterboarding program. Remember? And she tried to claim that the CIA "lied" about her attendance at said presentation... and Panetta had to refresh her memory.
You lefties don't actually think it's just your evil Faux News R enemies again here, do you? You don't actually think that Holder's nomination was approved with anything like a "truth commission" on the table, do you? Please... I want to believe you lefties have more on the ball than that.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI think that would have risked hardening conservative support for torture. The story would have been about criminalizing policy disagreements, and my guess is that few GOP elites would have wanted to ally themselves with the Obama Justice Dep't against Cheney et al. Unless, as I said, they have cover from Bush.
...yeah, particularly when the "Obama Justice Dep't" swore an oath that everybody would be protected, including the lefties who'd approved this waterboarding program. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThe people who conducted the interrogations after being told by the Justice Department that the procedures were legal can't be prosecuted. The prosecution of someone like Cheney would be denounced as a political witch hunt and the criminalization of policy differences. But a Truth Commission should certainly have been doable, and could still be done.
ReplyDeleteTo continue on Scott's first point: the shift in public opinion after Obama's election is at least partially due to a shift amongst Republicans, adopting the new party language. (The PS piece isn't fully clear on this, as that wasn't the core of the effort)
ReplyDeleteHowever, I *think* that opinion on torture was already correlated with partisanship and ideology. There's a reason one party sings about bombing Iran, and another party has the great bulk of folks saying "war is not my choice." It's not all opinion-leader-driven; the bases do differ on this question before they are told to.
Matt,
ReplyDeletePew did another survey later in 2009, not covered by the PS article. Republicans were more approving than Democrats, but the Democrats were also trending upward. The favorable ratings among Republicans were 64% in April 2009 and 67% in November 2009. For Democrats, they were 36% in April and 47% in November, a substantial hike--perhaps a fluke?
http://www.people-press.org/2009/12/03/section-7-threat-of-terrorism-and-civil-liberties/
Regarding whether Rep. Pelosi knew about weatherboarding. No such documentation has ever been released that disqualifies her claim that she was never informed of about weatherboarding. On the contrary the documents pertaining to her meetings with CIA briefers said they used EITs and that they were legal. She was never given details about what constituted EITs.
ReplyDeleteWe also know that Panetta was found to have covered for the CIA and misled members of Congress about CIA activities during the Bush administration.
“Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week,” states the letter to Panetta from Anna G. Eshoo of California, Alcee L. Hastings of Florida, Rush D. Holt of New Jersey, Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, Adam Smith of Washington, Mike Thompson of California and John F. Tierney of Massachusetts.
more here; http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/the-national-review-and-wall-street-journal-continue-to-lie-about-bush-era-torture/
Liberals are not the only ones that think the CIA has lied to Congress:
John Boehner Then:
December 9, 2007:
Wolf Blitzer: “Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that you don’t necessarily have confidence in this new NIE?” (NIE- the CIA’s national Intelligence Estimate)
Rep. John Boehner: “Either I don’t have confidence in what they told me several months ago or I don’t have confidence in what they’re telling me today.” [CNN, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, 12/9/2007; emphasis added]
I agree the lack of a Truth Comission even if only to sort out the facts for the record. Punitive punishment for individual CIA operatives would be demoralizing. Not by way of being an apologist for Obama, but he is said to list Lincoln among presidents he admires. His approach to forgive and forget about CIA torture was based on Lincoln's not taking punitive action against the Confederacy after the war.
Regarding whether Rep. Pelosi knew about weatherboarding. No such documentation has ever been released that disqualifies her claim that she was never informed of about weatherboarding. On the contrary the documents pertaining to her meetings with CIA briefers said they used EITs and that they were legal. She was never given details about what constituted EITs.
ReplyDelete.
No, these statements are false, and her fellow congresscritters point that out, not me.
Your implication is that the CIA waterboards people without all branches of government knowing, and both major political parties knowing. You should recognize intuitively that no bureaucracy will act as you imply the CIA acted. Their first instinct is for survival, and nothing could inhibit their survival more than lack of political support, amidst the vagaries of partisan political rivalry.
Again, I want to believe that you lefties are more on the ball than this, and "get it" here. There was never gonna be a "truth commission", because the Left can't afford to have one.
Until you provide documentation in place of shrill insistence, liberals will have to stick to the facts that Rep. Pelosi had no knowledge of specific CIA torture techniques. Liberals, having created and defended the Constitution through multiple wars and conservatism for over two hundred years can well withstand the scrutiny of any commission. Our legacy has inspired much of the world to seek freedom and economic justice.
ReplyDeleteCIA Documents Don’t Prove Pelosi Was Told Of Waterboarding
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/cia-documents-dont-prove-pelosi-was-told-of-waterboarding/
Right. So everybody else attending those meetings understood that waterboarding was in play, but Pelosi alone among the congresscritters failed to recognize this.
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is counterintuitive. There is no chance that the CIA would brief in the manner you're describing. Institutions don't work like that, in survival situations.
If what you're saying were true... there'd have been a "truth commission", believe me. But that was Holder's blood oath... that no such would be forthcoming if he was approved. The Left can't afford that.
Face it: Barack Obama is the Mike McQueary of torture. He's not the only one willing to let a perverted, disgusting crime go unpunished because it's inconvenient for him to do something about it.
ReplyDelete