Long-time readers will know that I consider it likely that torture will wind up as a partisan issue, with Republicans supporting it. I've proposed that the way to get around that is for Barack Obama to set up a Truth Commission that would document exactly what was done, and that it didn't "work" in the sense of being a good way to get information from detainees (noting that even if it had, there are other reasons it's a bad idea; also noting that it is of course possible, although in my view very unlikely, that an honest commission would reach other conclusions). However, I've also said that in order to get both bureaucratic and Republican buy-in, the logical price is to begin by issuing broad pardons to everyone involved, along with some presidential language praising the efforts of George W. Bush and the Bush administration after the September 11 attacks, treating torture as a well-intentioned and understandable overreaction, although clearly a mistake.
My question for liberals (and, for that matter, all torture opponents) isn't so much whether this approach would succeed in putting the bulk of the GOP in the anti-torture camp. My question is whether, if it was successful in doing so, the trade-off would be worth it. Basically, the question is: if the price for getting GOP leaders to really, thoroughly, condemn torture, including the Bush-era policies, is to both legally and, to the extent a president can do so, morally pardon the people responsible -- would you support that deal?
No the price isn't worth it.
ReplyDeleteWe had the consensus view that torture is morally reprehensible, and they went ahead and tortured anyway.
I would expect the same evasion, lying, and criminal conduct the next time, even if they said "oops, we shouldn't have tortured those people" after this time.
I don't see anyway Obama could get any level of support from any elected republican in the country for anything that you have suggested. I would consider this an acceptable, if imperfect deal. Therefore, I would expect most republicans to consider it an unprecedented assault on freedom, capitalism, the American way, motherhood, Christmas, and baseball. I see no chance of any of this happening. Leaving aside the firm and unrelenting opposition of republicans, there would be too many democrats that are too cowardly to address what happened, or were complicit in some way with the torture as it was occurring, rendering republican opposition moot. I hope that I am wrong about everything I have just written.
ReplyDeleteAs a next bext alternative, sure. In an ideal world itd be nice to have a commission AND sanctions against those who facilitated torture. But that world pretty much never will exist, so I'm all for reasonable measures to obtain a bipartisan consensus that torture is just not something we do/condone. You might say that that these ends justify the means, though one should be careful using that phrase in a discussion of torture.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to know (from you, Jonathon, or other commenters) is what are the political calculations that prevent or might enable this approach. Surely there are people in the administration who are aware of this idea. What is it they are try to accomplish/avoid by NOT taking this route?
As a liberal and not an American, I support only criminal prosecutions before the International Criminal Court and nothing else.
ReplyDelete(No comment on whether I also support only mandatory magic pony distribution and nothing else.)
I'd observe that there is already a partisan divide on torture, and Republicans absolutely do support it and will not (reasonably ever) condemn it.
I'd make another observation that I think is more relevant, too. There is basically no chance that this plan could ever succeed. Much as a Truth Commission could get to the bottom of this, pretty much every civilized country in the world has signed and strongly committed to anti-torture treaties that mandate the prosecution of torturers and which grant universal jurisdiction to do so. Even if there is agreement within the US not to prosecute, there can be no such agreement with other sovereign states. A Truth Commission would just give everyone else a roadmap to prosecution, and I think it's almost a sure thing that at some point, persons of interested would be detained, held, and tried by a foreign power. The acts carried out these last 10 years by the US are beyond the pale of civilization and someone at some point is going to start making people pay.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bryan, so this is basically moot. As to Drew's question, I think Obama decided early on that he didn't want to spend political capital on this issue, and even something like this pardon / commission idea would put it front and center (with the consequences that Bryan describes). So, he thinks, best just to say "We won't do it again" and leave it at that.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the next people to do it will do exactly what Bush and co. did: They'll claim they're not doing wrong, that torture isn't "torture." They'll paper it with bogus legal memos explaining why whatever they're doing is actually somehow consistent with all the laws and treaties prohibiting it. I'm not sure of the way out of this; I've been hoping that foreign countries would continue to leak details of what went on, solidifying opposition around the world, if not here, so that future Dick Cheneys would at least have to calculate that going this route could cost them their future European vacations.
Actually, the thing Obama could do that would probably have the biggest preventive impact is embrace torture as national policy and call for legislation giving the president unlimited power both to order it and to keep it secret. That will instantly make it odious to the GOP, which will fall all over itself denouncing torture as the worst affront to liberty imaginable. And for once, they'd actually be right about something.
Jeff, I think this is a perfectly wonderful idea. Consistent too. If one wished, they might be concerned about the massive increase in human suffering begotten by Obama's utterly ridiculous surge in Afghanistan; liberals know that Obama only perpetrated such human suffering because his hand was forced by the bellicosity of his predecessor.
DeleteObama could then add torture to the legacy of human suffering on his Nobel-Prize-Winner's resume, and like the ridiculous "surge" in Afghanistan, this too would ultimately be Bush's fault. Thank God for Bush. You might have to hold Obama to account without him!
Clearly the military was not involved in the surge decision at any level at all and it was a 100% top down presidential decision. Even though it was the exact same thing suggested in Iraq in the last two years of the Bush administration.
DeleteThank god for myopic partisanship, otherwise you may have to actually think independently.
Just to be clear, the general left-liberal response to the Afghan surge was not, "Too bad Bush forced Obama's hand," it was, "This is why a lot of us had doubts about Obama all along." The same goes double for his handling of torture: Nobody thinks he was left without options and was forced to take the positions he's taken. These are issues on which Obama broke with his base (or betrayed it, some would say).
DeleteIf we could somehow get the deal you're talking about, Jonathan, I'd be very happy for it. Retributivists worry about the past; utilitarians like me worry about the future.
ReplyDeleteNeil has a good point - responders need to discuss from a common ethical framework, or else the question just becomes a question about what ethical frameworks people like to use.
DeleteI think a utilitarian framework is the most interesting one in this case. From that framework, I'd oppose the deal. I think Rs are unlikely for the next 10 years to repeat the mistakes that even the Bushies stopped doing in 2005. After 10 years, enough info might have dribbled out that we could prosecute these guys, which'll help deter future would-be torturers.
I'd go for it though if the pardons were only for admitted actions like the South African commission did (I wouldn't require statements of regret). The extra info would help international prosecution and deterrence.
Why would this proposal get Republican buy-in? Issuing pardons to those involved implies that they were guilty of wrongdoing. Therefore this element would be an aggravating point to Republicans, not a concession.
ReplyDeleteThis plan won't work. The only way to effectively end torture as policy is for to both a Truth Commission and prosecution of American officials who participated in this policy from the lowest to the highest. Without prosecution, people inclined to torture will do so again if they achieve power.
ReplyDeleteNot sure I accept the premise of the question... but assuming it is true, then yes, I would accept this deal in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteI do not accept the premise. The R's are in total opposition to whatever Obama wants to so, and will never agree. Besides, there is a significant number of them who like torture, and would never willingly give it up.
ReplyDeleteBut, in some alternate fantasy world where your premise were true, I would go along. I would also want a pony, world peace, and a cure for cancer.
JzB
Like other said, I would completely take it, but I find no reason why Republicans would take it. In order for someone to accept an offer of a preemptive pardon, he would have to calculate that the alternative is worse. But is it really? Can the Dems really think that they re going to enforce a truth and reconciliation committee which is going to hand penalties left and right on the face of determined opposition? I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with torture remains and it's this: The idea that it works seems intuitive to the vast majority of people.
"The problem with torture remains and it's this: The idea that it works seems intuitive to the vast majority of people."
ReplyDeleteI just don't think that's true. Everyone understands implicitly that you can torture someone into telling you anything that makes the bad stuff stop. I think that those who support torture don't do so on the premise that it works; I think they do so on the premise that "they" deserve it.
Yes, I agree with this. And the people who consider that it "works," understand "works" not as "the tortured divulge useful information." They think it intimidates the enemy, expresses our resolve to punish the evil others and stand tough. It's about an attitude, a posture, one which theoretically and philosophically I could imagine one making a case for, but it wouldn't be one that agrees with existing standards of civilization and military propriety.
DeleteYes.
ReplyDeletePolitical scientists like Mr. Bernstein love to posit questions like this one, but the question is fallacious on all counts. It's a non-starter of an issue, and Obama knew that unless he had a fool-proof super majority in the Senate, he'd never get the votes to set up either a "Truth" commission or a path to prosecution. Like the Nixon pardon, this is an issue that needs to be swept away as quickly as possible. The comment someone made that Obama's inaction practically guarantees that someone else will torture in the future does not convince. Yes, the precedent has been set, but I'm under no illusion that similar behavior has not existed in some form for decades.
ReplyDeleteI agree it's a non-starter right now as half the country has spent the last 3.5 years pretending the Bush administration never happened and the other half is more concerned with reelection so we don't get another batch of potential war criminals running the State department.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think anyone on the left would go for this because a truth commission in this context is about acknowledging failure, not about justice. So unless it has the power to actually send people to jail it's a waste of capital.
The other reason for a truth commission is to promote reconciliation, but the victims in this case are not U.S. citizens and there's no one there to vote for reconciliation. That's why the Bush administration was able to get away with it: because they weren't torturing any constituents, and there was no state actor to speak for the victims in an international setting. So you weren't making any enemies that mattered by engaging in torture.
The real tragedy is that there is no reason why this can't happen again in the future unless we get someone in another branch of government who can check the abuse of power.
I would not support it.
ReplyDeleteWhat are we trying to accomplish?
Jamie has a good point that we got in this mess from a starting point where torture was a non-partisan issue with both sides against it. There was military and academic (and social?) agreement that it doesn't work. Restoring us to the status quo ante doesn't accomplish anything. We would need to get to an even stronger anti-torture consensus than we had eleven years ago because no matter what we did there would be lingering partisan pro-torture sentiment.
I don't think such a stronger consensus is possible. It is one thing for South Africa to be consumed with interest in a truth commission. The issues they were dealing with went right to the heart of the entire society, so of course the commission was going to be a huge deal, closely followed, and very influential.
In the U.S., the partisans who are pro-torture don't make it part of their essential understanding of themselves or their party. They are pro-torture in the way they are pro-fracking. It seems like a good idea, and they don't see what all the fuss is about. They are not going to hang on the edge of their seats waiting to see what the torture commission says. Unless Fox news gives 100% buy in to support the work and findings of the commission, they will reject it as it is getting set up and never give another thought to it. I think there is a good chance a truth commission would widen and harden the partisan gap as liberals tune in and conservatives tune out.
I think we need to decide what we want for the future. I think that over time torture will slowly return to a non-partisan issue if we don't force the conservatives to keep their hardened positions. I also think there is less domestic political downside to having the international community do the heavy lifting. If The Hague wants to start a collection of tortures to prosecute, at least the backlash will be toward international bodies that the conservatives always have and always will hate rather than towards domestic political institutions.
Yes, I would support it. Pursuing criminal charges will not prevent the reinstatement of torture. The whole show would just inflame the issue along partisan lines all over again, and anyone convicted would just be pardoned by the next Republican administration. Right now, contrary to what most commenters believe, there's only a few genuine (and annoyingly outspoken) torture apologists out there... Most Republicans today are not anxious to bring it back (let alone campaign on it), and would just as soon people forget about it entirely. Therein lies the challenge of setting up the truth commission.
ReplyDeleteObama would have to give up a lot to get this going. (1) Not 'til after the election (obviously). (2) Obama has to be as invisible as possible. If he can get Director Petraeus to take the lead on this, and be the public face of the effort, showing the CIA cooperating fully, that could be enough to get bipartisan buy-in. (3) The highest-level people involved would certainly get away with not testifying (don't expect anyone from the Bush White House). That would suck, but them's the breaks. (4) The Democrats have to be willing to share the blame, and provide their own witnesses to set up for embarrassment, not just the Republicans. I have no problem with that. We should consider this a national failure, after all.
Tybalt had a good point about anti-torture treaties, and that's sure to be a major talking point among torture apologists. However, in practice, I don't see the incentive for foreign countries to bring their own charges, if they desire any relations at all with the U.S.
The truth commission won't guarantee it won't happen again, but it's the only possibly effective way.
Yes. Given your hypotheticals, I would support it. But I'm afraid anyone admitting to "torture" would really NOT be morally exonerated. Remember, the current stance is that these guys are tough heroes who had the kahunas to do what had to be done. Getting them and their supporters to admit they had done something wrong would be a HUGE about-face. Getting them even to label their activities "torture" is simply not realistic. The entire right-wing program runs on a sense of outraged righteousness. There's absolutely no way they'd give that up for the sake of a pardon (which they have no reason really to need anyway). Get real, Jon.
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeleteThe pro argument: Since public opinion tends to, broadly speaking, follow elite discourse, actually getting Republican elites to condemn torture would likely result in mass opposition to torture, e.g. help solidify the conventional view that torture = bad.
The con: The above depends on Republican/conservative elites buying in and making the argument that torture is in fact wrong. Two problems there. First, it assumes that there the conservative elites who have offered a positive argument in favor of torture aren't actually arguing from their heart; I'm not sure that assumption is tenable (at least for some portion). Second, I think if a Democrat calls for this type of commission, even with pardons, that Republican elites might still abstain and not buy in. In fact, I imagine that a good many conservative elites would bristle at the notion that a Democratic president even had to offer the pardon in the first place and double down on their support. I think Julian Sanchez has the goods here when he argues that much of movement conservativism is animated by "ressentiment" (made in a post I can't see to find a working link to). Part of that motivation is the fear/anger over being judged by uppity liberals - the whole pardons issue would tap into that nicely and, I imagine, spark a backlash among a large enough number of conservatives that the commission would simply fail.
You have NO comments in the Conservative block.
ReplyDeleteJenny
Short answer, yes. Longer answer, yes, but what the commenters above said.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it would be possible to convene some kind of hearings about what we should allow foreign countries to do to our captured servicemembers. If, for example, Iran captured a Navy Seal, would it be permissible to waterboard him - 150 times if necessary? To put him in stress positions for long periods of time, subject him to blasts of cold water, lock him in a coffin, keep him awake for hours on end? Personally, I think not, but then personally, I think torture is torture and the Geneva Conventions are the Geneva Conventions.
Something tells me that what looks like fraternity hi-jinks when we do it to "them" wouldn't seem quite so benign if it were done to us, but maybe the torture apologists will surprise me by being consistent.
I'm not sure we can get Conservatives to back off of torture at this point. They're too invested in it.
ReplyDeleteNot even pointing out that their heroes thought it was detestable seems to have budged them.
I'm glad we don't torture anymore, but let's be honest - the new policy is to simply kill suspects rather than to detain and torture them. Isn't that a bigger issue than some hypothetical future comeback for torture? Or is the partisan jousting over this issue really more important than the actual reality in front of our eyes?
ReplyDelete