There's been a certain amount of dismay expressed by progressives over the past week or so about Obama's emerging Cabinet and the lack of any real liberals within his administration so far; some of this is reasonable, some of it excessive.I think that we can all lament the abuses that occurred under the Bush administration. Guaranteeing Guantanamo prisoners their rights and a speedy hearing will be good. Not torturing will be awesome. But keeping this discussion going? I'm not sure where that gets us. And I am very much not sure that the American people will be clamoring for CIA officers to be hauled in front of committees to be called torturers. I can't help but thinking of Ollie North* pretty much kicking ass and becoming a national hero while explicitly admitting to breaking the law.
But if Turley is right, and the Obama administration and congressional Democrats do what they've been doing all along -- going along to get along, and putting politics over principle -- when it comes to confronting the reality that torture was conducted under American auspices, then the resulting uproar and outrage will be fully deserved.
The fantasy of indicting anyone important in the Bush administration is just that, a fantasy. For hump sake, they couldn't get anything on Gonzales. Our best bet would be to lead by example. We keep saying, "the grown ups will finally be back in charge," if that's the case, let's act like it. Launching futile investigations just so we can needle some people who are out of power isn't what grown ups do, and is not what the American people want.
*Did you know that Corbin Bersen and his wife, British actress Amanda Pays, named their son Oliver North Bernsen?
5 comments:
How do you respond to the common counterargument that NOT investigating this stuff sets a precedent of busting the law?
I would respond by saying that we are all well aware that our government has repeatedly broken the law -- especially in the name of national security -- over our history. A few convictions (which I don't think we'd get) of some low-level officials is not going to prevent anyone from breaking these same laws in the future. I would offer Abu Ghraib as an example. While Iraqi prisoners are probably not being stacked into piles any more, I wouldn't say that the US military will never abuse prisoners again.
I would also argue that the relative indifference to these crimes is jury nullification writ large. I think that once you get a few people up in front of the committees talking about what horrible, horrible men they were torturing, the American people will be even more in favor of say "screw you" to the Geneva Conventions.
Despite polls about the war and Obama's election, I really believe we are in a small minority on the "war crimes" issue. I'm with you, I just don't think hearings/trials are going to do anything other than continue to the give the neocons a platform to talk about "Muslim extremists" and how they are more patriotic than you and I because they will do whatever it takes to defend this great nation.
I tend to agree with you about the utility of it, sadly, even if it means forgoing a shot at some kind of justice.
On the other hand, I think you just sank the concept of deterrence, or at least put a sizable dent in it, no?
Also, can you envision a scenario in which justice is served on this issue?
I would be forced to ruminate on what "justice" could possibly be in this situation.
Post a Comment