File under: Critical Thinking
The [Bush White House] aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
-- Ron Suskind in the New York Times, recalling an epiphanic conversation that took place in the summer of 2002
Since the latest Bush torture memos were released, the news media has been persistently reporting a myth -- that Barack Obama has publicly changed his position on whether those responsible should be investigated and prosecuted if they broke the law. I have seen this story repeated so many times over the last week or two that it has now became accepted as "fact," despite evidence to the contrary, just about everywhere -- from the New York Times to Fox News. Even The Daily Show, one of the more reliable sources of television news and analysis, got it wrong.
Here's one version of the myth, as promoted by one Clive Crook in The Financial Times. After releasing the memos and repudiating the methods they outlined, Crook writes that Obama:
promised that there would be no prosecutions of interrogators, so long as they had acted in good faith and under guidance that the methods were lawful. And he implied, at least, that the same would go for the lawyers and other officials who had designed the earlier policy.This would not do, however, for many in Mr Obama's party. They accused him of being too timid. Immediately, the president began to vacillate. He allowed for the possibility of some prosecutions, and mused on the proper form of further investigations - not, his spokesman explained, that he was necessarily in favour of such investigations.
Mr. Obama's position is still in flux.
In fact, Obama has consistently articulated the same position all along: He has put a stop to the torture and wants to lead the country forward to face some tough challenges (and that's exactly the tone the president should be setting). While some kind of accountability for past abuses may be necessary, only the evidence itself, as weighed by the Attorney General's office, will determine whether individuals are prosecuted for breaking the law. Obama's hands-off position is the smart one, the ethical one. He's knows this isn't a decision that should come from his office; he must allow the Justice Department the independence it needs to review the facts. But the media wants to make it into a political presidential decision -- because that's what they're used to after eight years of Bush, whose White House was notorious from the start for politicizing all policy matters, explicitly signaled by the presence of Karl Rove in top-level meetings.
Let's review the public record of what Obama has actually said. It's not hard to do -- it's all readily available to anybody with a web browser. Here's an excerpt from an interview with George Stephanopoulos, as quoted in USA Today ("Obama: Time to look forward, but Bush aides aren't above the law"), from January 11, 2009 -- before he took office:
Obama: "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. 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 at 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." [...]
"We have not made final decisions, but 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."
Stephanopoulos: "So, let me just press that one more time. You're not ruling out prosecution, but will you tell your Justice Department to investigate these cases and follow the evidence wherever it leads?"
Obama: "What I -- I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is he is the people's lawyer. Eric Holder's been nominated. His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not to be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So, ultimately, he's going to be making some calls, but 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 looking at what we got wrong in the past."
From Obama's official statement of April 16, 2009:
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs. [...]
This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.
The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.
This is entirely consistent with his earlier statements, and with what he has said since. When Obama visited CIA headquarters on April 20, he sought to take heat off the working agents:
What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy; even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it's expedient to do so. That's what makes us different.
So, yes, you've got a harder job. And so do I. And that's okay, because that's why we can take such extraordinary pride in being Americans. And over the long term, that is why I believe we will defeat our enemies, because we're on the better side of history.
So don't be discouraged by what's happened in the last few weeks. Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.
The next day, answering questions from reporters in a "joint press availability" with King Abdullah of Jordan, Obama said:
For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted.
With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.
As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations. [...]
... I think it's very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.
It was president George W. Bush, beginning in 2003, who said, in his famous "Get Outta Dodge" address on the eve of invading Iraq: "War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders.' " We know how much words meant to Bush.
Yes, Rahm Emanuel went on ABC's "This Week" April 19 and told Stephanopoulos:
He believes that, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote, let's just take a step back. He came up with this and worked on this for about four weeks. Wrote that statement Wednesday night after he had made his decision and dictated what he wanted to see. And Thursday morning I saw him in the office, he was still editing it. He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. [...]
... [T]hose who devised the policy, he believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either.
That last sentence does indeed contradict -- or at least venture a step beyond -- what Obama had said previously. But Obama didn't say it. Emanuel was giving his characterization of the president's beliefs, but he was not announcing policy. There's a significant difference. And just because Obama is not necessarily behind something does not mean he doesn't understand its value to others. He doesn't want to spearhead a truth commission, but that doesn't mean he will actively try to prevent one from forming. Is this so hard to understand?
I urge you to read for yourself the documents (official transcripts of Obama's statements, the torture memos themselves) linked to above. When the press can't keep a simple story like this straight (no prosecutions for agents in the field following orders in good faith, for the obvious reasons; Justice Department will determine if policy-level prosecutions are necessary), you wonder how much else they just don't get.
P.S. See Glenn Greenwald's take at Salon on why the media is resisting investigations into torture: "Unanimous opposition among establishment journalists to investigations is unsurprising given their role in what happened."
Thanks for this, Jim. I wasn't going to hold my breath for someone in the MSM to really explain what the president's position means. Instead they just obfuscate, clouding what he says with their "analysis." You just know that when the first prosecution of any kind comes down the pike, they're going to be all over the "but he broke his promise!!!" angle. --sigh--
JE: It's like the reporter who was so insistent that bio-terrorism could "not be ruled out" as a source of swine flu... even though officials kept saying there was no evidence, and no reason, to think it is. The press loves to speculate and pretend that "uncertain" or "unlikely" or "to be determined" are synonyms for "reasonable" or "probable."
Not to get post-happy, but another thing: It's almost as if the media's so warped by the Bush-Rove years that they're hell-bent on seeing EVERYTHING through a political lens. It's almost as if they've forgotten that the presidency, is about governing and executing the laws moreso than it is about politics. This cynical attitude has trickled down into the populace, too. One of my friends, a Republican who voted for Obama, complained about the president's prime time presser tonight, asking: "Is this guy ever going to stop running?" I had to remind him that, oh, I don't know, we're in the middle of a historic economic downturn, a financial crisis, two wars, and a burgeoning pandemic, so maybe it's a good thing that the president remain visible and accountable.
JE: Bush was the one who disappeared on 9/11 -- and who advocated going "above the filter," meaning he liked to give televised addresses but not answer questions. It's going to take a while to undo the damage Bush left behind, including what people have come to expect from unaccountable elected officials in the executive branch. As a politician and a president, Obama is the antithesis of his predecessor.
Enlightening read, considering I was under the impression that Obama made a small about-face on this subject. There's a lot of subtle semantics involved here, so it's not surprising the media hasn't reported it clearly and accurately -- probably the only people who could rival Bush's lack of nuance and subtlety in the last eight years were the personalities on cable news.
Jim wrote, "It's going to take a while to undo the damage Bush left behind, including what people have come to expect from unaccountable elected officials in the executive branch." That immediately reminded me of something I felt very strongly following Obama's victory on election night.
I'm 25, and the first election I voted in was 2004 (for Kerry). Since the time that I actually became involved with and started following the news, politics, world events -- you know, actually being aware of the world around me (which occurred around when I started college in 2001, as I didn't pay much attention to the news in my high school days) -- all I ever really knew with my own eyes and ears were all eight years of the Bush Administration. My one attempt to influence the political climate in 2004 was a failure, and then it was four more years of Katrina, illegal wiretapping, waterboarding, CIA agent outings, and a vice president attempting to become his own shadow government branch. Then before you could say "learned helplessness" comes Obama's win, and it instantly provided a deeply refreshing moment of clarity. "Whoa... things actually can change every eight years or so, huh? Bush isn't what America would be about forever, is he? Well how about that."
Of course I "knew" all this before, but it took seeing it with my own eyes for it to become real. And I wondered how many other people my age felt the same way.
It will indeed take a long time to undo Bush's damage, and I believe some of that will happen as my generation realizes the precedent his presidency set (which may be the first educated exposure to governance and politics we experienced first-hand) is not the one that'll define America forever.
(Then again, I also can't help but think about the ending to that South Park episode about Wal-Mart, where all the people in the town realize the evils of Wal-Mart, burn their local store down, shop at smaller mom and pop stores so much that they eventually grow into giant retail chains like Wal-Mart, and then burn them down again...)
P.S.: If a much shorter version of this post was already submitted, that's because I accidentally hit Submit earlier. Not sure if I stopped my browser in time.
JE: "Learned helplessness" is the perfect diagnosis for life under Bush. Since his administration did not acknowledge the "reality-based community," it was helpless to deal with it. We could only watch helplessly as they blithely and blindly went on their way, determined not to let reality deter them from their fantasies.
Dead on, Jim, and Obama has the right (and only) philosophy on the matter. We'r supposed to be looking ahead... why on earth to Democrats continue to want to live in the past? I agree, we were raped and pillaged by a... shall we say, eccentric cast of characters, but that time is over now. Painting the Bush administration like they were the Fourth Reich is the kind of stuff that turned most people against the Dems in the first place.
I mean, that SOB Andrew Jackson sure did abuse his powers! Let's dig up his grave and put the little Hitler on trial!
PEDANT ALERT!
Good article, Jim, but in 3 instances you use some variation of "media is," "media hasn't," and "media wants."
Not only is it grammatically incorrect to treat "media" as a singular noun, but it is also the preferred usage of right-wing Anne Coulter-types. They do this semantic trick intentionally, I suspect, to subtly create the illusion that all the disparate news agencies think the same thing and get their water from the same well.
Which might be your intention, I guess, but some people find it off-putting. I, for one, stop looking at any book that uses "media is" in the dust jacket because I assume it's going to be the same as all the other grumpy right-wing books that use "media is."
Now I'm off to tell people to use "his or her" instead of "their"!
If you chose to amend your article please delete my post. Keep up the good work!
JE: 30 years ago, I'd probably be right with you, but English has evolved since then. Using this plural as a singular has become an accepted way of referring to various journalistic forms: print, broadcast, online. Think of it as a substitute for "press." In the US we'd say "the press has..." -- but in the UK, it would be "the press have..." (or "Manchester United have..."). Anyway, the American Heritage usage note says:
A-- C------ types would like you to believe that The Liberal Media is some kind of monolith (when anyone who's actually worked in the business can tell you the only monolithic thing about it is the pressure to make money for the umbrella corporation). So, she uses it as a singular for a different reason.
I remember some pretty apropos dialogue from the movie Traffic:
You know, when they forced Khruschev out, he sat down and wrote two letters to his successor. He said - "When you get yourself into a situation you can't get out of, open the first letter, and you'll be safe. When you get yourself into another situation you can't get out of, open the second letter". Well, soon enough, this guy found himself into a tight place, so he opened the first letter. Which said - "Blame everything on me". So he blames the old man, it worked like a charm. He got himself into a second situation he couldn't get out of, he opened the second letter. It said - "Sit down, and write two letters".
Obama will only be able to kick Bush around for so long.
Just because Bush was a bad president doesn't make Obama a good one.
The two are much more alike in their policies (like bailing out banks) than either conservatives or liberals want to admit.
JE: "Just because Bush was a bad president doesn't make Obama a good one." Absolutely. That's why Obama is extremely smart to restore transparency and move on, concentrating on his own policies going forward. It's not the president's job to investigate the previous administration, and he knows that. The Justice Department, Congress, the courts (domestic and international), and public opinion will determine who is accountable, and to what extent, for policies that rationalized and condoned torture.
Jim,
I agree with your points. Obama mentioned in his press conference that he realized during his first 100 days that just because he is president, that does not mean that he has the power to do everything, but that there are several power centers in the country. Leaving the prosecutions of those responsible for the use of torture to the Judicial branch is the most effecient and neutral thing to do.
I'm also confused as to why people are upping the intensity and frequency of their protests to torture now, when we all knew it was happening before. The protestors in front of the White House today are a little late aren't they? He released the torture memos and clearly stated that torture will no longer be used. Now that the tide is turning, they're protesting now?
Jim,
Please stick to movie reviews and commentary. Please. I come to this site to read about movies, not about politics.
I am sure I am not the only one who feels this way. Some websites I visit to read about politics and what's wrong with the world; I visit websites like this one to relax and escape from the world. I don't want to read about the politics of prosecuting Bush administration officials. If a movie comes out about this topic or other political issues, then fine, write away. But I don't see how this topic is in anyway related to any movie currently out.
Thank you,
Someone
They are not torture memos. They are enhanced interrogation memos. Talk about getting it wrong all the time.
The left thinks that by letting our enemies know how we INTERROGATE prisoners, that that will make us stronger. It doesn't. It makes us more vulnerable; more likely to be attacked. Thank you Mr. President for making us LESS safe.
JE: There's not a shred of evidence to support your logic here. Read the memos. Read Obama's statements about them. Read the military's and intelligence community's reactions to the techniques the Bush administration sought to legally rationalize. There are many forms of interrogation. American history, at least back to WW II, has always viewed these particular techniques as torture. World history, at least back to the Spanish Inquisition, has always viewed them the same way. Our fair treatment of prisoners has always enhanced America's security, and increased our standing and influence in the world. When enemy forces know they will be treated humanely, they have not only surrendered but volunteered useful information -- not the false and unreliable information that is usually extracted by torture (no matter what euphemism you may choose to apply to it).
Hey G_Man:
Waterboarding isn't interrogation. It's torture. What Ali Soufan did with Abu Zubaydah was interrogation: he earned his confidence and got him to give up Khalid Sheikh Mohamed. And then the CIA took over the "interrogations" and waterboarded Zubaydah 83 times, yielding next to nothing. If you can get a guy to talk by giving him some smokes, speaking Arabic to him and calling him the name his mom used to call him, why would you torture him other than to get him to admit things that aren't true or just out of sadism?
I guess we 'torture' our own Navy Seals, then?
And we DID get useful information from these techniques but the left has to lie about that so when we do get attacked again then they can say that there was nothing we could have done. Sorry, Mr. Lefty and friends, we are now weaker from the release of these memos because our enemy can now prepare for them. What are going to be the new techniques used? The comfy chair? How about the horrid soft pillows? There was no reason to release them and show our hand other than for political reasons.
Micheal C., it is not torture just like Obama is not evil. Just unprepared and not very smart.
JE: Yes, if you're referring to the SERE program it was started during the Korean War (and continued in Vietnam) to help our POWs deal with torture BECAUSE the North Koreans and the Viet Cong were not abiding by the Geneva Conventions.
As for our own methods, as Obama explained in his statement, these were all a matter of pubic record as long ago as 2004 -- declassified or released under similar lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests during the Bush administration. The only NEW information in the memos was some of the "legal" reasoning behind the decision to use torture (including a failure to understand the origin and history of the SERE program) and some of the specifics -- such as how often particular prisoners were subjected to waterboarding, and the news that the torture was not actually being carried out as outlined in some of the carefully worded rationales for claiming it was not torture. If you didn't want to know that the US was using torture, you should have been upset at the Bush administration for releasing the information to the public up to four or five years ago.
From Obama's statement:
http://budurl.com/e6qk/d
As military and intelligence authorities have confirmed, there is no solid evidence that these "enhanced" methods resulted in any useful information that could not have been otherwise obtained by legal means. But that's not relevant. Bush insisted again and again that "We do not torture." Yet we did, and we were. These practices, the lies about them and the justifications for them, recklessly endangered Americans and American interests everywhere.
Even if these were not torture memos--and they are torture memos--how exactly does telling enemies of ths US how the US military "interrogates" make the US more likely to be attacked?
I can only see two possible arguments here, although I'd be happy to hear a different one:
Argument 1: If they know what "interrogation techniques" the U.S. has, they can prepare for them, or train against them.
Counterargument: There is no preparing for waterboarding or 11 days of sleep depravation.
Argument 2: If they knew the U.S. "interrogation" consists of mistreating prisoners, more people will sign up to attack the U.S. (This argument I believe.)
Counterargument: Or, you could just stop mistreating prisoners, with releasing the information about what has been done the first step to showing the U.S. to be mature and able to improve itself--i.e. demonstrating that it is not the barbaric empire that al Qaeda recruiters can argue it is, because of the mistreatment of prisoners.
I have no idea why releasing this information hurts the U.S. in a way that practicing the techniques themselves didn't already.
When exactly did abhorrence of torture (the kind Reagan signed the U.S. into a treaty opposing)--and yes, waterboarding is torture, period, as John McCain recently said--and some attempt at intellectual honesty, transparency and accountability become a trait of the "left" alone?
JE: Well said. The military and the intelligence community knew what torture was and they were against it. Civilian authorities, acting on patently bogus legal opinions drawn up for the sole purpose of rationalizing what they all knew was torture, insisted on it. The orders came from the top -- contradicting all the experience and training of the professionals in the field. That's why Obama does not believe those who were following orders "in good faith" should be prosecuted, but that it's up to the Justice Department to determine if there are grounds for prosecuting those who turned torture into US policy.
G man:
If flattery gets someone to give up the mastermind of 9/11, why bother torturing him? The torturers themselves become warped by savage techniques that we train our special ops guys to resist. How can we justify labeling our enemies as barbaric when we do the very things we condemn them for?
Also: being waterboarded as a training exercise - by people in your own military and bound by law to preserve your life - is drastically different than being waterboarded by an enemy with no regard for your safety, let alone your life. Your citation of SERE training to justify torture is as Orwellian as it gets.
FYI: Convention Against Torture, signed and championed by Ronald Reagan, Article II/IV (1988):
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law.
More here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/01/shifts/
It seems to me that there are a number of people in washington that want to blunt Obama's strength in anyway possible.
The pundits do it to make any sort of political capital gain they can and the media eats it up because the media is a natural drama queen.
And so we see these silly attacks that are a lot like the 'lipstick on a pig' attacks of the campaign. Obama has been able to deflect these attacks like Clinton was able to and in ways that John Kerry and Al gore could not.
These types of attacks will always be there, and you have to have someone able to deflect them in order to be effective in washington.
Obama needs support from people willing to stand up for him in order to be able to continue to effectively run our country. So thank you Jim Emersonon.
Jim, in case you wonder, I do not find it easy being right all of the time:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090513/pl_politico/22470
JE: Surely it must be difficult, though. What was it you were right about this time?
JE: "That's why Obama is extremely smart to restore transparency and move on, concentrating on his own policies going forward."
As a wise man once said: Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/2009051 3/pl_politico/22470
JE: Same? Hardly. Those photos are going to come out one way or another, and Obama knows it. But it would be dumb for the executive branch to hand 'em over without going through the legal process first. These images haven't already been in the public domain like the memos were. And, although I believe they will have to be released in due course, a legitimate argument can be made that images are more inflammatory than words. So, I don't pretend to know the strategy behind this move, but watch how it plays out before jumping to the conclusion that the Obama and Bush administrations are operating under the same principles when it comes to torture and transparency. So much has already happened in the last four months to demonstrate that's manifestly untrue. For one thing, torture is no longer US policy. For another, the photos are not evidence of actions this president authorized. That's an important distinction:
http://bit.ly/ECy3e
Andrew Sullivan, after sleeping on it:
http://bit.ly/QSvgO
John L., after sleeping on it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1182228/Barack-Obama-does-U-turn-Guantanamo-Bay-terror-trials.html
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20090515.DC17891&show_article=1
"President Obama is reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions that in June 2008 he called an 'enormous failure.' In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law by sacrificing due process for political expediency.
"Whatever revisions the Obama administration has made to the commissions do not change the fact that the commissions do not provide an adequate standard of justice for the detainees nor the victims of terrorism -- they merely mock the U.S. Constitution, international laws and undermine fundamental human rights standards.
"What happened to President Obama's confidence in the U.S. justice system's ability to try detainees? He himself said that 'we need not throw away 200 years of American jurisprudence while we fight terrorism."
I'm quoting Amnesty International, by the way.
I think people have invested too much in Obama to believe that he may be a bad person and president. If, after everyone calling Obama the ultimate rebukation of GWB, he turns out to be pretty similar in policies and politics to GWB, then where does that leave them? People want Obama to be a good president, and that desire will overcome facts for a very long time.
JE: Compare differences and similarities. Light years apart. And Obama is NOT "reinstating the same deeply-flawed military commissions" that were used under Bush. Does no one pay attention to reality? The rules -- regarding habeas corpus, for example -- are entirely different, and rely on the cooperation of Congress. ABC News: http://bit.ly/Q3Q6B "As a senator, Mr. Obama supported military commissions, though he voted against the version pushed by the Bush administration..."