Today President Barack Obama ordered the Office of Legal Counsel to release memos from the years between 2002 and 2005 relating to interrogation techniques then approved for use against terrorism suspects. He also issued a statement outlining his reasons for the release, explaining the principles the U.S. will follow from now on and giving his view of what the legal system should do from here. The President's reasons for making the documents public are acceptable. His statement of principles is welcome. But his vision for legal action is little but a disappointing rationale for justifying political expediency over law and principle.
You can read the documents themselves as first released here. They allowed for such procedures as depriving detainees of sleep for a week, throwing them against a wall as many as thirty times, and of course, waterboarding. There is no question such practices violate the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners. You can see them here, particularly Article 3, Section 1 clauses a) and c). The United States has ratified this Convention, making it American as well as international law.
In discussing his decision to come forward with the material and his views on related matters, here is President Obama's statement as printed in the New York Times.
Obama said he is making the documents public because the "techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported," the "previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program," and, "I have already ended the techniques described in the memos." The President spoke of maintaining a true and accurate "accounting of the past." The first two reasons are disappointing. They seem to say that since the world already knows the truth there is no sense trying to keep covering it up. The intimation seems to be that if the world had not found out then maybe Obama would think it a good idea to keep the truth hidden. He seems worried about being criticized for revealing U.S. secrets by hardliners, whether they are justifiably secret or not. That does not sound like "change we can believe in." The last reason, to set the record straight, is the one saving part of this section of the statement, along with his assertion, "their release is required by the rule of law." (emphasis added)
The part of Obama's statement outlining his perspective on torture is the most sensible and humane. After recalling his prohibition of these practices "in one of my first acts as President," Obama went on to assert his stance that, "they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer," and rejected excusing torture as a "false choice between our security and our ideals." This is all well in keeping with the standards of the United States and the kind of conduct that will attract allies and partners rather than the abhorrence of civilized people while it swells the ranks of our adversaries.
The President, however, ends on an unsatisfactory note in his desire to sweep the unpleasantries of the past under the rug. He states, "This is a time for reflection, not retribution." He says, "nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." It is enough, he says, to, "right its course in concert with our core values," but then to, "come together on behalf of our common future." Obama closes by saying of the memos, "we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them will never take place again."
It is here that I would disagree. He has taken but halfhearted steps to prevent them from happening again, even on his watch. He has issued an Executive Order. Since there is apparently to be no consequence for those who flouted U.S. law before in this regard, there is little to suggest a sterner approach if it happens again. As for letting the past fade away without resolution other than "reflection," that is what led to this problem in the first place. The fall of the Nixon Administration but the pardon of its leader led at least two of its young lions, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, to plot for nearly thirty years to get back into power and be part of an Administration unfettered by moral or legal constraints in pursuit of its hardline "realpolitik" views.
President Obama has a lot on his to-do list, to be sure. In addition to inheriting a terrible economy, two wars and an impending environmental crisis, new problems continue to arise. The Mexican drug war, Indian Ocean piracy and reforming the tax system stand as examples of the growing list of serious challenges. From what he said today, that looks to be one of his concerns in deciding not to go after the "misguided zealotry" at best, or sadistic criminality at worst that these memos unleashed. But expedient yielding to wrong is never a good idea. It tends to invite more of it, sooner or later.
2 comments:
Upholding the constitution demands bringing the light of Justice, anything short of that would beg the question; won't someone please think of the children? This rebuke of the moral and legal obligation to indict and prosecute, opens the way for schools and airports,roads, bridges,etc, to be named after war criminals.
"Open criminality is a cancer on democracy" wrote Scott Horton in his article, "Justice After Bush".
His article outlines in detail how prosecutions against the Bush Administrtion should take place. Unfortunatly, Obama would rather move foward than show our country that criminal acts are unacceptable and punishable. Obama's lack of commitment to the people on this issue further demonstrates the idea that the rich and powerful get away with murder. Not only get away with it, but continue to be our countries leading examples, yet if a civilian were to take part in such crimes, that person would be put to justice.
Cheney is a beautiful example of this: He has continued to openly express his support for torture in exchange for "intelligence".
So what are we to do now? With these injustices that we are supposed to look past and move foward, when we still feel the pains of time, money and people lost?
Post a Comment