I'm pleased—if that's the right word—and more than a little surprised to see that Obama has released four of the Bush administration's torture memos. As far as the content of the memos goes, I don't know that I have much more to say than I said here.
I'm less pleased by Obama's stated rationale for not pursuing prosecutions:
[A]t a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past....I understand that Obama is in the middle of a personally and professionally dangerous balancing act. I understand that political language is not generally intended to inform people of the facts, let alone the truth. I've never expected Obama to rise very far above what is ultimately a cruel and brutal office, whether he wanted to or not. And I realize that the extent to which we're not being lied to about torture may possibly be more significant, in the long run, than Obama's typical palaver about the spiritual necessity of getting over what we've done to other people and other countries.
That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.
And yet. Is it really necessary for Obama to keep rejecting the concept of accountability? Is it really necessary to keep demoralizing people who believe that we have no right to move forward, and who don't see embracing the ethics of the hit-and-run driver as a path to national greatness? He's obliged to spout platitudes, granted...but does he have to spout platitudes that specifically undermine the rule of law, and the entire notion of justice as a means of reconciliation and redemption?
It seems obvious to me that if we'd laid the blame properly for the most lurid political crimes of the seventies and eighties — if we'd understood that "moving forward" required us to recognize the architects of these crimes as people who could never again be allowed to hold office — the Bush administration would've been a logical and legal impossibility.
Ideally, we would've done this in order to make amends to our victims, and to take a tentative step towards becoming the people we claim to be. Failing that, we could at least have barred proven war criminals and sadistic crackpots from the White House, simply as a matter of self-preservation. But instead, we moved on from the crimes of Rumsfeld and Negroponte and Abrams and the rest so highmindedly that they were at perfect liberty to take up right where they'd left off, less than a decade earlier. And since that turned out so well for everyone, why not do it again?
Every time we're caught brutalizing and mutilating and murdering people in ways that haven't gotten the seal of approval from Civilized Nations, it turns out that justice is a luxury we can't afford, because it might sidetrack us from our appointed path to glory. I can think of plenty of reasons for not pursuing prosecutions; I may not approve of them, but I understand them. I can even imagine strategic tradeoffs that could be beneficial in the long run. But I can see very few reasons for pretending that there's some moral or practical virtue in fleeing yet again from the scene of the crime, in order to console ourselves yet again with thoughts of our essential "greatness." And none of them reassures me at all.
Nor am I thrilled with this fretting over "disunity." I don't want to be unified with torturers or the people who defend them. It's like being forced into a shotgun marriage with a man who just raped you and burned down your house. The monstrous ideological imposition of "unity" is what made crimes like these possible, and now it's supposed to justify putting them beyond the reach of the law...presumably so that we can once again present a monolithic front against this dangerous world full of evildoers who hate our freedom. And if "our" unwillingness to uphold the law leads to some new atrocity, and we're "fortunate" enough to find out about it, Obama or someone else will undoubtedly urge us once more to "resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."
As always, like cures like. Just as terror is the antidote to terrorism, and free-market failures call out for free-market solutions, an extra dose of stupid, sentimental nationalism will solve the problems that arise when The Greatest Country On Earth gets a little too zealous in its pursuit of manifest destiny. What could possibly go wrong?
(Illustration: "The Water Torture: Facsimile of a woodcut in Damhoudere's
Praxis Rerum Criminalium," 1556.)
11 comments:
...does he have to spout platitudes that specifically undermine ...?I think the answer to your questions must be "yes, apparently", which is kind of interesting in itself.
I think the answer to your questions must be "yes, apparently", which is kind of interesting in itself.
Yeah, that's basically where I'm going with this. IMO, the question is whether it's a force of habit, and it never occurred to him or anyone else to say something different, or a conscious expression of an actual worldview.
I don't much like it either way. But I dunno...perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
we live in a generation of swine.politically expedient platitudes aside, it's more disturbing to me that slightly half of the population believes "we" just did what needed to be done.
I suppose from this distance I can see a larger picture emerging for which the platitudes act as a curtain of invitation.
If you consider the 'we' and 'our' to which he refers in attempting to deftly sidestep the inevitable legal mire of prosecutions as 'his' administration rather than the American people, then it seems to me that he is laying the groundwork for both avoiding claims of partisan witch-hunt AND, more importantly, setting up the future on the question of torture as one that ought to properly derive from Congress rather than the Executive.
I anticipate there will be congressional/senatorial hearings which may go some way further to resolving this thorny issue of which you speak. It's just something that won't be actively initiated by Obama. I think it's a smart move on his part. God knows he has enough to juggle.
The 'we' might be intentionally ambiguous too. It's in keeping with the considered rhetoric he's been using with respect to the future on a number of topics, Cuba most recently - it's a continuation of the hope message; the post-partisan loveydovey inspiration of 'we' going forward (vacuous, possibly but not wholly without impact, if only by contrast with W); while at the same time giving him some cover in avoiding the appearance of chasing down his predecessor and the opposition party.
By releasing unredacted docs, he's inviting chatter: he wants the people to demand investigations - through their representatives - rather than it being by decree in a top-down form.
All IMHO of course.
I anticipate there will be congressional/senatorial hearings which may go some way further to resolving this thorny issue of which you speak. It's just something that won't be actively initiated by Obama. I think it's a smart move on his part. God knows he has enough to juggle.
I can't rule that out. What I'm taking issue with is the language, not the strategy...being as I don't know what the strategy is, or if there is one. As far as the Congress vs. Executive point goes, I agree with you.
By releasing unredacted docs, he's inviting chatter: he wants the people to demand investigations - through their representatives - rather than it being by decree in a top-down form.
That's possible. But if so, it's an extraordinarily subtle invitation, especially for this country at this time. And if that is his goal, I'm afraid the more superficial meaning is the one that the opposition will seize on when fighting him...probably with some success.
But what it really comes down to for me is that this sort of talk is intensely demoralizing to a lot of people. As such, I'm not sure that it's the way to get people to demand anything. They're at least as likely to decide the fix is in and become (more) apathetic, as I see it.
That said, your points are good ones: I don't know what's going to happen next, and I might be pleasantly surprised. I hope you're right.
--if so, it's an extraordinarily subtle invitation, especially for this country at this time. And if that is his goal, I'm afraid the more superficial meaning is the one that the opposition will seize on when fighting him...probably with some success.--
How is it subtle? He's just agreed to the release of his predecessor's torture manual in effect. He's saying let's move on and let's not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith according to the legal provisions they were given. (Ambinder notes that implies that those who acted in bad faith are still at risk). The release is hardly subtle. It's damning on its own and doesn't need any further overt imprimatur from Obama. That he rescinded the practices and that he's released the docs are huge signals in their own right. They, and the political language he's used,are the defence to any alleged "opposition", either on the left or in the shreds of opposition among Repubs.
He wants the country as a whole to move on. OK, maybe he could have said that congress can decide themselves as to the future conduct but it's implied (you may disagree, but as I say, from my distant vantage point, that's how I understood it as soon as I read BO's statement), as is his desire to not having it either seen or perceived as being directed by the executive. This is a very shrewd line he's walking.
I was for HRC originally but I reckon the guy has not put a foot astray in these last couple of months among astoundingly difficult terrain. One thing I keep seeing is that he works outside the daily news cycle mentality -- in this case, attempting to parse the whole picture by dissecting the specifics of the language -- and that the effect of his manoeuvring doesn't really become apparent until later.
So I say be observant and vigilant but also accept that there is a fairly good track record so far of acting in good faith, even if the elaboration isn't always so obvious at the outset.
How is it subtle? He's just agreed to the release of his predecessor's torture manual in effect.
Sorry, I was thinking about the statement, not the release of the memos themselves. Looking back, I see that I misread you.
He wants the country as a whole to move on. OK, maybe he could have said that congress can decide themselves as to the future conduct but it's implied (you may disagree, but as I say, from my distant vantage point, that's how I understood it as soon as I read BO's statement), as is his desire to not having it either seen or perceived as being directed by the executive. This is a very shrewd line he's walking.
It may well be. And this is basically what I was intimating when I talked about the strategic tradeoffs, and the possibility of the release of the docs being more important in the long run than how he did or didn't frame it.
If you get that implication re: future conduct, that's interesting. I don't quite see it, but your take on things may indeed be more objective, given the mindnumbing media/chatter I'm exposed to day in and day out, and the plain fact that I'm stuck living here. We'll see, I guess...and of course, I'd prefer to be wrong.
So I say be observant and vigilant but also accept that there is a fairly good track record so far of acting in good faith, even if the elaboration isn't always so obvious at the outset.
Fair enough. I do try to, by and large. On the tar sands issue, for instance, I felt that environmentalists were getting upset over Obama's comments in Canada for no good reason.
But this particular formulation is something I've seen used too many times, in too many sickening situations; it's not really possible not to react (or overreact, as the case may be). As I see it, it's the constant political reassurance that we're so goddamn great and moral and unique that makes Americans think we can do anything we want. Obama may be saying this with good intentions, but it's not what we need to hear and I don't believe it's essential to a good outcome, to say the very least.
I wrote this post late at night, in an extremely bad mood, and I can see that whatever balance I started out with is pretty much lost by the end, for better or worse. I suppose it's best to view it as a visceral personal reaction, rather than as any kind of prediction about what effects the release of the memos will have, or what Obama's legacy will be, or anything like that.
Honestly, it's hard to communicate just how disheartening and infuriating a phrase like "disturbing disunity" is, after having survived the last eight years. If you want to take this as evidence of how badly those years traumatized or unbalanced me, you'd be well within your rights, and probably correct. Chances are, it'll take a while for the reflexive rage to subside.
At any rate, we certainly agree on the outcome we'd like to see.
--it's the constant political reassurance that we're so goddamn great and moral and unique that makes Americans think we can do anything we want.--
I understand what you're saying about the atmosphere that you've had to live through and how easy circumstances (say, the language of one announcement) may lead a person to be skeptical, but for instance, such a well considered response as Obama gave at a press conference at NATO recently on the subject of American exceptionalism is jaw droppingly radical (as are many of the cooperative policies being pursued in foreign affairs) by contrast to at least the recent past.
I guess that's all I'm saying: the minutiae may appear to be token stodge from the handbook of cynical rhetoric, but there is, to my mind, a larger fabric being knit here. You've the right of course to microscope and blowtorch every play and it may turn out that Obama has a jelly spine with respect to the torture brief, but personally speaking, I find it hard to judge the guy harshly on his choice of language in a cover statement when it is accompanied by the full release of such a devastating and contentious set of documents. The action itself is the item that carries the greatest significance, no?
The action itself is the item that carries the greatest significance, no?
I hope so. And I tried -- but clearly failed -- to acknowledge that.
On the other hand, my worry, obviously, is that the banality of the interpretation could undercut the radicality of the event...kind of like hitting some sort of moral snooze alarm. I hope I'm underestimating him and us...it's very possible that I am.
-but clearly failed-
Nah, you didn't fail, I was just feeling fighty ;- )
Nah, you didn't fail, I was just feeling fighty ;- )
Well, In that case, I take it all back. Everything you've said here is wrong, and you and Obama are both worse than Hitler!
Post a Comment