Once and For All
In his "remarks" at the National Archives on May 21, President Obama spoke of "so-called enhanced interrogation techniques" and said the he "ended them once and for all."
But did he?
Obama ended the use of "enhanced interrogation" through an executive order, but anything that can be ended with an executive order can be restarted with an executive order, so there is no assurance that a later President (or even Obama himself) could not reinstitute the same program that brought us Guatanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding. Nothing could make this clearer than to point out that, on the same day that President Obama declared that the program was ended "once and for all," former Vice President Cheney declared in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute that he "was and remain[s] a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program" and that "every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations."
In order to be sure that these methods have really ended "once and for all," we need a clear adjudication by a court, commission, tribunal, or other public process to establish that what the Bush administration did violated federal law, the Constitution, and international law. I don't know whether it needs to be a criminal prosecution, a civil judgment, or a bipartison commission. But we need something that is public and authoritative. Then, and only then, will those methods be ended "once and for all."
President Obama would prefer not to have to go through that kind of process, and it is clear that his reasons are political and not ethical or moral or legal. He simply wants to avoid the political divisiveness that such a process could provoke.
I therefore hope that Cheney continues to give speeches and continues to make his views known. The longer and more often he talks, the more we will see that torture has not ended "once and for all" and that there is still work to do.
But did he?
Obama ended the use of "enhanced interrogation" through an executive order, but anything that can be ended with an executive order can be restarted with an executive order, so there is no assurance that a later President (or even Obama himself) could not reinstitute the same program that brought us Guatanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and waterboarding. Nothing could make this clearer than to point out that, on the same day that President Obama declared that the program was ended "once and for all," former Vice President Cheney declared in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute that he "was and remain[s] a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program" and that "every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations."
In order to be sure that these methods have really ended "once and for all," we need a clear adjudication by a court, commission, tribunal, or other public process to establish that what the Bush administration did violated federal law, the Constitution, and international law. I don't know whether it needs to be a criminal prosecution, a civil judgment, or a bipartison commission. But we need something that is public and authoritative. Then, and only then, will those methods be ended "once and for all."
President Obama would prefer not to have to go through that kind of process, and it is clear that his reasons are political and not ethical or moral or legal. He simply wants to avoid the political divisiveness that such a process could provoke.
I therefore hope that Cheney continues to give speeches and continues to make his views known. The longer and more often he talks, the more we will see that torture has not ended "once and for all" and that there is still work to do.
Advertisement
Cheney (Dick and daughter) is holding up the "other" side of the debate.
As theatre it is understandable. That Cheney is wrong in fact and law is a separate matter which quite possibly should go to trial in law.
"we need a clear adjudication ... to establish that what the Bush administration did violated federal law, the Constitution, and international law."
No, if Congress passes a law, none of that recrimination sort of stuff need apply to suit your stated goal. Yes, Obama cannot strictly end it forever. Yes, Cheney is basically a liar, but keep in mind that vaudeville is not a court of law, at least ideally speaking.
May 23, 2009 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble here is going to trouble of making a legal case that supervised waterboarding is indeed torture in the legal sense.
That's the reason Obama used an Executive Order - it's a shortcut. So it's not clear to me what you're suggesting in a way of formally banning waterboarding forever. Waterboarding is just one technique.
But the reality is that in war situations you will always deal with the issue of obtaining intelligence from detainees who refuse to speak.
Any administration that fights a war has a vested interest in developing interrogation methods that just stop short of being illegal - because any administration will believe them to be more effective in producing useful intelligence faster - than simply holding hands and spending time befriending the detainees.
As is now clear to everyone, Obama's national security policy is essentially the same as Bush's. He's simply redecorating the controversial elements of it for political purposes.
And in a short time, Obama will develop a new range of techniques that will replaces the current ones.
May 24, 2009 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The trouble here is going to trouble of making a legal case that supervised waterboarding is indeed torture in the legal sense. "
It might be interesting to "argue" the case informally beyond what has already appeared in posts and comments at TPM. I don't have time right now.
Leading from the bully pulpit makes change... if the Congress and the People are willing to also make the effort. So "simply redecorating" is a cheap shot if it isn't just dead wrong.
May 24, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink