This is a defining moment for America.
The way we respond -- or fail to respond -- to the revelations about the Bush administration's use of torture will delineate -- for ourselves and for the world -- the kind of country we are.
It is a test of our courage and our convictions. A test of whether we are indeed a nation of laws -- or a nation that pays lip service to the notion of being a nation of laws.
And everyone engaged in our public conversation has a role to play.
So far, the media are not getting high marks. They can't seem to shake their addiction to looking at every issue -- even one that pivots on questions of morality, not politics -- through the archaic prism of right vs. left.
So we got CNN's Ed Henry mainlining a right-left 8-ball at Tuesday's press briefing, asking Robert Gibbs, "Is this an example of this White House giving in to pressure from the left?"
And we got the Washington Post's Dan Balz saying -- in two different pieces -- that Obama's release of the torture memos "has stirred a major controversy on the right and left." According to Balz, "the anger on the right was expected. But Obama faces equally strong reaction from the left, where there is a desire to punish Bush administration officials for their actions... Obama owes his presidency in part to this constituency, who rallied to him during the battle for the Democratic nomination because he presented himself as a staunch and early opponent of the war in Iraq. Now they are demanding that he acknowledge their point of view."
Since when is the need to adhere to the laws that govern us a left-wing "point of view"? Is Thou Shalt Not Kill a "point of view"? When the police arrest a rapist, is it because rape is inherently, inarguably wrong -- or because that's the cops' "point of view"?
Isn't torture one of those things where there really is no legitimate other side?
And if this really is a question of right vs. left, how do Henry, Balz, and all the others framing the discussion that way account for Shepard Smith's table-slamming outburst on FoxNews.com's The Strategy Room? Was his "We are AMERICA! We do not fucking torture!" a left-wing point of view confusingly expressed by a right-wing commentator?
Memo to the media: Time to check in for a serious round of "right vs left" rehab. When it comes to torture, the only appropriate framing is "right vs wrong."
Obama and his team have had their own problems with the issue. Despite a commitment to looking forward, they failed to see the massive wall of public indignation directly in front of them.
After all the internal back-and-forth they apparently had about how to handle the issue, it was interesting to see how fast they reversed course -- the president quickly walking back from Rahm Emanuel's unequivocal "no prosecution" position.
Once the spotlight was turned on, it was impossible to sustain the let's-just-move-on stance. What is at stake is just too huge to sweep under the presidential rug. It leaves too big a lump in the middle of the Oval Office -- and too big a stumbling block in the path of Obama's presidency.
I understand the president's preference for "reflection" over "anger and retribution." But this is not about personal pique or a desire for vengeance. It's about the nation's fundamental morality.
Which is why it is imperative that we keep the pressure on the president, on Congress, and on the Justice Department. Not left-wing pressure. Not blogospheric pressure. Moral pressure. The pressure born of America's values.
Pressure to do the right thing. The moral thing. The legal thing. Pressure to keep the acts of the Bush White House from being implicitly condoned. And to keep the abuse of presidential power -- and the use of torture -- from becoming American precedent.
In pushing for a truth commission on torture, Sen. Patrick Leahy had repeatedly said that "we can't turn the page unless we first read the page." But we've actually read the page -- the torture memos -- and been horrified by what we're read. So now we need to act on that horror. And we can only do that by holding accountable those responsible for authorizing the use of torture.
The clock is ticking while the world waits to see if Yeats was right. Do the best of us really lack the conviction necessary to make sure that justice is done? Is it really only the worst of us who are full of passionate intensity? (See Rove and Cheney and Hayden coming out swinging, acting -- as John Cusack described them to me -- "like caged, cornered animals.")
And do the best of us become the worst of us if our passionate intensity does not make the leap from words to action?
Understandable from a practical point of view.
But nevertheless disappointing to say the least.
He contorted around the issue just as everyone else is by saying things like "mistake" and talking about efficacy and "the core issue" of being able to obtain any information through other means....
Chris Mathews is another apologist that seems to be unable to grasp that some things ARE worth dying for.
Torture is a war crime and more importantly Treason when done by officials of our Government sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution because it is done to persons who are captives under our controll and protection.
There is therefore no moral equivilancy between Hiroshama (an act of War) and torture.
As Americans we have got to understand and uphold and defend the proposition that inalienable rights devolve to captives as well as anyone else.
Torture is the exact opposite of upholding inalienable rights, instead tearing at the founding fabric of our Republic (hopefull to become one day a Democracy) and the proposition that we are dedicated to inalienable rights and those responsabilities that therefore obtain.
Shame on us all if we allow it to go un-investigated and were required un-punished.
For our future Governments we need the complete prosectution as a ward against any further abuses in our name.
Killing in self defense is considered legitimate excapt amongs the msot pacifistic who think it is more moral to let a mass murderer kill their families than for him to kill the mass murder.
And Ms. Huffington, there is a ligitamate side to what was done. You are, in effect, saying that you would rather the people in the Library Tower die than Khalid Sheikh Mohaamad get waterboarded 183 (or whatever) times.
You might also consider that it took all those time to get him to talk about future plots, so maybe being nice wouldn;t have worked.
Obama is bombing poeple, including innocent people, in Pakistan. Why no outcry? And shouldn't Obama be worried that the next president might call that illegal and try HIM?
You mean they weren't bleeding from every pore?
They still had both arms and feet?
I guess our men and women in uniform who fought for us and suffer severe cases of PTSD can be seen as "unharmed", right? Gee! They must be all faking it. NOT!
This is NOT about "get Bush."
This is about 8 years of a president that didn't get it. For 8 years there was a section of America (unfortunately, it was only about 50% of Americans) that were SCREAMING "stop!" But no one listened... worse than that, the President actively told the rest of America that we were stupid and ignorant (but then Bush always took things of substance and turned them upside-down to come up with a name, i.e. "clear skies" or "no child left behind" or "those with differing points of view are 'wrong'").
But like I said, this isn't about "get Bush" it's about recognizing that you can't just disregard another point of view because you disagree with it. As a representative of the people a President is supposed to be above that kind of childishness. It's about recognizing that if Bush had listened to the people he marginalized, America probably wouldn't have had 9/11(the intelligence community tried to tell him, but he brushed them off as partisan which is absurd),
There are so many examples my head is overflowing, but his most certainly isn't about getting Bush.
You are 100% correct-- this is indeed right vs. wrong and should not be framed by the media (or anyone for that matter) as a left vs.right issue.
Truth can be messy and inconvenient-- but that's no excuse to sweep it under the carpet!
And where is it written that half the country thinks torture is OK??
Even if that's true, that's not a good reason
to go along to get along.
Good grief!
Would yuo have blamed Bush if al Qaeda ahd attacked the Liubrary Tower in LA and thousands died
And I respectfully point out that a substantial majority of the country was opposed to give women the right to vote during the Suffragettes's fight for equal rights. Likewise for people in the South after Brown vs. Board of Education; ending the segregation of African-Americans, etc.
The fight for Justice has nothing to do with consensus building and touchy-feely soft-core psychotherapy. It is about correcting wrongs that are sometimes deeply ingrained in the fabric of a given culture. But cultural acceptance doesn't make it right; it merely makes the fight for justice harder.
If we end up sanctioning torture as part of our political an cultural fabric, we are doomed as a nation, and no amount of economic power or military might would prevent this fall into social oblivion. The Beacon on the Hill would be permanently turned off.
There are lots of times that we are sure a crime has been committed and we're pretty sure who did it, but can't get enough evidence to bring it to trial. This may be one of those times - and the last thing you want to do is try it and have an aquittal - what does that do? Does that not only let the guilty go free, but undermine any future cases against torture?
It'd be nice to know who did it, put them on trial, get them convicted and go on - but that probably won't happen. The real culprit was the Congress - they could have impeached Bush with very little evidence and they wimped out. Now it's probably too late.
I agree.
And let the chips fall were they will.
The reason for bringing legal proceedings against those who abused detainees and those who ordered it should be obvious. It is what you also stated,"to keep the abuse of presidential power--and the use of torture--from becoming American precedent".
"Isn't torture one of those things where there really is no legitimate other side?" - I used to think so, but now this seems to be a very different, almost unrecognizable, world we're living in ("9/11 changed everything"). I wouldn't be surprised if we started burning witches soon.
Just look at our electoral collage system if you don't think so. It is NOT Democratic (yet).
Still in our imperfect way we were born dedicated to the proposition that ALL are Created EQUAL and endowed by our CREATOR with inalienable rights, just because we are alive.
One could say that is a point of view.
If so, then citizenship is also just a point of view.
So then it would seem that any that do not uphold and defend the Higher Standards called forth in our founding Documents, do not share the point of view of a citizen.
They should as adults then remove themselves to some other nation that holds a point of view they do agree with.
Perhaps Communist China or some other place were unwarrented investigations and no haebius corpus right and torture are all seen as just expedient means of Governing.
To be an American is to be responsible to our Union and what it means.
Honor is not a myth.
Neither is courage.
Love is no easy thing either.
All these are demanded by America as we light up the world and seek to lift all Nations up to Freedom.
But then that might be a point of view...
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Can you please do a calculation of how many lives would be saved over the next twenty years by instituting a policy of never torturing anyone? Until you can do this, it seems pointless to claim that torture “saved lives.” You must also be able to say that “not torturing” will not save lives, or will save fewer lives than a policy of permitting torture.
Almost any policy decision will “save lives” if it is well intentioned; the question is which policy decision will save more. In calculating how many lives a non-torture policy would save, please factor in the goodwill that the US would receive, the hate-based or fear-based regimes that would be more isolated and eventually would disappear as their torture and oppression practices become more obviously aberrant from the civilized world, the stronger alliances we could form with countries that would help us track, capture or kill terrorists, the attacks that would be de-motivated, the lower number of Al Qaeda recruits resulting from the absence of the “Abu Ghraib” spur to sign up, and so on. If you can’t do this calculation I suggest you not continue to speak up for torture.
Efficacy, expediency, practicality are meaningless.
So many people are like you and endure in their obtuse failure to grasp the real root issue.
Think harder and deeper and perhaps you will see it, as your instincts are all telling you it is somehow essentially wrong to torture.
But you do not seem to know WHY it is wrong.
I am constantly amazed at people like Chris Mathews and many other so called pundits that do not get either.
These are often smart people like Barac Obama.
Yet somehow they never can look to the very nature of our Nations forming and those documents that declared or new Nation as one dedictated to the proposition that all people are equal and given inalienable rights by a Creator just for being alive.
That radical and transformative concept is the HEART of what America is.
It means something about the responsibilites we as citizens of this Nation bear because of that singular and inspired declaration.
Like the song says"
Find the cost of Freedom, and lay your body down.
Although I am confused, this issue defines our moral fiber?? Didn't our moral fiber get flushed down the toilet when we as a nation sat by and let a mad man lead us into an immoral war. Actually watching on tv in real time as REAL bombs dropped on and killed innocent people; loudly clapping and cheering as though it were a fking video game. Shock and Awe is over, our moral fiber literally scattered across Iraq.
We don't don't need a news hack/talking head to tell us what we should think, we need to take responsibility for our gov't. It isn't the press it's us to damn lazy period. Turn the damn idiot box off and stop being brain washed - try having an original thought. Take the profit away from all the talking heads and they will go away, and maybe just maybe some real journalism will emerge.
I'm just saying....
In the end, the vast majority of Americans are too busy trying to earn enough money to have a happy life for themselves, their families and loved ones. They have precious few moments to concern themselves with defining moments. America will survive if the investigation of torture proceeds or doesn't. History tells us that political investigations seldom lead to much more than censure. In a time when the economy, health care, energy and education are in play, it's difficult to add the investigation of torture as a priority issue.
We are either a nation of laws or we are nothing
Well said.
I hope for the day that Americans would look on this with horror and demand accountability, but we don't live in that America yet. Constitutional rights (or international rights) are conditional on your relative goodness.