Tortured Logic

Well, frumps, there’s nothing I hate more than being sucked into a non-debate but this current non-debate about torture (i.e., Enhanced Interrogation Techniques) sucks so much that I’ve been caught in the undertow.

This past month kept us so busy with “grassroots” fun and games that we sort of ignored the major leaguers for a while (that’ll happen in the August “slump.”) With the release of more pieces of the CIA’s Report on interrogations, though, it came as no surprise when Dick Cheney came snarling back to life this weekend for a “softball” “water balloon” interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday (what? You were expecting journalism?). As Andrew Sullivan so succinctly put it, Chris Wallace was like “A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers.” There, now I feel better.

Torture Is as Torture Does

Before I go any further into this I want to be clear that my personal position on the torture investigation is simple. Without any further investigation or ado, I have seen quite enough of photos, videos, documented accounts and various other souvenirs of The War on Terror to develop a firm conviction that, barring faked evidence (which no one has suggested), what occurred was shameful and sickening Torture, period.

What I saw being done to political prisoners, carried out and filmed by Americans, was indisputably morally wrong and illegal. If a foreign enemy had done any of these things to American prisoners, there would be no discussion or debate about whether or not it was torture or whether or not is was justifiable under the circumstances.

Any argument that these techniques were warranted to safeguard American lives is particularly galling coming out of the mouth of a man who had no problem sending thousands of Americans to die in his make-believe wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, Dick Cheney should be socially shunned, excommunicated from American politics at any level and sent off to some remote spot where he will pose the least threat to the welfare of humankind. The man would be well-advised to take a page out of George Bush’s book and keep his head down and his mouth shut.

Cheney, true to form was instead anxiously and publicly awaiting the release of two magical memos from the CIA that he promised would not only exonerate him but reveal to us all, for the first time, what an inarguably heroic man our ex-Veep is. Cheney promised, more than once, that these memos would “show specifically what we gained” from the Enhanced Interrogation Program.

Are we all on the same page, here?

Well! Finally, the big day arrived and, guess what? Major Fizzle. Those memos were so collossally unhelpful that even Frances Townsend, a homeland security adviser and close confidante of Bush on terrorism, admitted on CNN that the report just doesn’t support what Cheney has said it would. Listen:

And before any Bush/Cheney apologists get cranked up, Frances Townsend is no born-again Obama fan. She’s one of yours. Townsend sounds to me like someone who really, really wanted to believe Cheney but had to own up in the end (Brava, by the way, Frances). She also still vigorously defends other aspects of the Bush Administration’s national security efforts. Most recently she came to bat for Tom Ridge who was beset with allegations that there was some political gaming going on with the National Security Threat Level during the Bush administration.

In addition there is the statement from President Obama’s National Security Advisor, General Jim Jones (Ret), that, far from Cheney’s assumption that Obama is soft on terrorists and endangering the nation, there is already ample evidence that Obama’s approach is much more effective than that of the previous administration. Here’s that interview:

Why are we even having this discussion?

Of course the whole discussion about the efficacy of torture for obtaining information can be easily dispensed with if torture is illegal, (and it is) – it’s similar to debating the efficacy of bank robbery for preventing foreclosure. Whether it works or not, it’s illegal.

The laws prohibiting the use of torture are not vague notions that float around in a cloud of Golden Rule. Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries, including, of course, the United States. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention officially agree not to torture prisoners in armed conflicts. Torture is also prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has been ratified by 145 states.

Despite the fact that George Bush’s Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales viewed the Geneva Conventions “quaint” relics of a bygone era, any U.S. Attorney General is sworn to investigate the perpetration of abusive interrogations regardless of the perceived value of the information obtained. Such an investigation should include both those who actually conduct interrogations and those who order or approve them.

Despite Gonzales’ position, the Supreme Court ruled (contrary also to the Bush administration’s claims) that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to “war on terror” detainees and Congress specifically outlawed abusive interrogations in the Detainee Treatment Act.

Recently I’ve seen and heard squawks from the right to the effect that President Obama ordered Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor for purely political reasons. That, of course, makes about as much sense as anything else coming from that quarter lately.

Obviously these folks have slept through a few acts. Obama has repeatedly said, sometimes to the chagrin of supporters, that his preference is to go forward while changing the way we handle the interrogation business (which he has already done and Dick Cheney has already screamed about). Also, these are the same right-wingers who have seemed quite knowledgeable about Constitutional Amendments, lately, but, oddly, don’t seem to understand that the Attorney General acts independently of the President so statements like “Obama made him do it” in reference to Holder’s announcement are just specious arguments.

Is there a Special Prosecutor in the house?

If you are like me, and you believe in your heart that this was criminal behavior that tainted the highest levels of our government, the only valid debate becomes what to do about it. It’s this stage that gets dynamic because there are a number of ways, laws not withstanding, to address or dismiss transgressions in high places.

We have several approaches going on right now, as a matter of fact. There is the ongoing Senate investigation being headed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Intelligence Committee as well as Eric Holder’s recent decision to appoint a special prosecutor to carry out a “limited” investigation (whatever that means).

Cheney fired back immediately on the Holder announcement calling it offensive partisan politicking and all of the things that Cheney might be expected to say. He has actually gone so far as to say that he “might not cooperate” with a special prosecutor if called upon to do so – a puzzling position for a man who is so hellbent to prove that he’s done nothing wrong. In the meantime, Dianne Feinstein was not best pleased, either, saying that Holder’s timing was “not good.”

I may surprise a few readers with my take on how things should proceed on the legal front. First, I think that Obama is playing this one very well, he’s holding back, but not obstructing Holder from doing his job. I think that if we really want to know everything that happened in the Bush administration around CIA interrogations utilising Enhanced Techniques, we should not interfere with the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation. I think that Obama and Holder know that and that is why Holder’s announcement was so unsatisfying to some. The reason lies in the nature and purpose of the two parallel investigations.

We’ve probably all seen enough episodes of Law and Order or CSI: New York to know that a prosecutor’s job is to find irrefutable proof that a crime has been committed and to ignore everything else that pops up that does not support the allegations being made (no matter how juicy those pop-ups are).

Holder’s investigation, by it’s nature, will be more focused and particular; and evidence discovered, no matter how damning, might never come to light if it is not relevant to the charges to be prosecuted. Moreover, the special prosecutor could investigate over a long period of time, uncover all kinds of wrongdoing and, in the end, disclose nothing at all because none of the evidence discovered would rise to the level of supporting a successful prosecution.

On the other hand, Dianne Feinstein’s committee has the potential for uncovering quite a bit, but since it’s the Intelligence Committee, a lot of that information could be shielded from the public in the name of national security.

Sen. Patrick Leahy has been pushing for what he calls a “Truth Commission” for ages but it appears he’s being viewed as a “crank,” for whatever reason and hasn’t gotten a lot of vocal support. Without a strong push from the White House and Democratic leadership, we probably won’t see an independent or congressional investigative commission.

Keep Health Care Reform front and center

Some folks think that it would be better to hold off on any kind of “torture” investigation until health care reform has been settled. I am of the opinion that the most recent announcements regarding torture and Bush administration culpability are an unusual but interesting political move. If having the discussion dilutes the health care debate, it does so on both sides of the aisle.

Republicans, lately, have an odd heady reaction to any slippage of Obama’s approval rating regardless of where their own political stock is headed. Republicans have also been mounting an all-out offensive on health care reform. It could be a shrewd move to take some of the wind out of those sails by putting the GOP back on the defensive. Maybe it’s not such a bad move to remind the American people where they were coming from when they decided to vote for Change.

Meanwhile, statements like Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-Texas) promise to repeal any health care reform enacted when Republicans “regain majority” is political puffery meant to appease constituents but it also signals, to me at least, that the GOP probably feels the tide turning on the health care debate. They know they can’t really effectively stop it and they’ve gotten as much political mileage as they can probably get out of opposing it.

Actually, I wish Barton et al. good luck with the repeal idea, because I have a feeling that Americans of any party will have a “to know it is to love it” feeling about any substantial reform package that is enacted. By the time the GOP has pulled itself together enough to stage a comeback, they will most likely be looking for ways to take credit for the 2009 Health Care Reform Bill.

Technorati Tags: Dick Cheney, President Obama, Eric Holder, special prosecutor, Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee