Our Obligation to Investigate Torture

We should go forward in courts and Congress with investigations into post-9/11 interrogations and the decisions leading to them. These actions were perpetuated by our leaders, with our resources, in our name, for our safety. That gives us the right -- indeed the obligation -- to declassify what was directed, what was done, and what was learned.

While some suggest a "truth and reconciliation commission," I think blanket amnesty or immunity is inapt here.

When considering truth and reconciliation, few images are as evocative to me as those of Desmond Tutu listening with South African mothers of murdered children while the killers confessed their crimes, and then Tutu and the mothers collapsing in a collective grief beyond words or tears. No such thing as "closure" for the families, but learning the horrible fate of their loved ones, accepting apologies and attempting forgiveness was deemed worthy of immunizing the guilty.

Does the South African truth and reconciliation experience translate to the Bush era torture cases? I doubt it. At best, we would get incomplete truth and less reconciliation. First off, we get incomplete truth because we will not be getting the whole story. Not every fact will be declassified -- because we cannot jeopardize current intelligence sources and methods. Second, the end result of truth and reconciliation is supposed to be forgiveness, but we already know from former Vice President Cheney that there is no apology proffered nor forgiveness sought. With neither side backing down, we won't achieve reconciliation.

What remains is prosecution -- and in the course of any prosecution, limited immunity in exchange for factual testimony before the courts and/or the Congress. On that front, we should be prepared for a hung jury in the court of public opinion. As I learned as a young prosecutor, when the play is cast in hell, don't expect angels for actors. We would not see the South African innocents confronting and forgiving the guilty or the innocent 9/11 families searching for truth and reforms to prevent others from being murdered. In this instance, the people tortured were suspected terrorists, not necessarily innocent bystanders. Fairly or unfairly, the demand that the suspects be treated according to the Constitution or the Geneva conventions will be defended by a rationalization that their status as alleged enemy combatants justified torture by their captors. Moreover, any discussions of precedent would include conduct of administrations that preceded George W. Bush -- as well as the reasons why the 9/11 terrorist attacks justified a departure from prior conduct.

I see nothing in the public discourse to suggest that any verdict would suddenly change hearts and minds. But the investigation would restore the rule of law and guide future conduct by our military and intelligence personnel. That is ample motivation to go forward.

Comments

[dperino]

whoa. ever heard of a "gut" check? you know, that thrumbing ping in the belly that goes to the head, creates anxiety, confusion and a host of other things that compel serious thought on a matter? i've no doubt that when we look at the role of stuffed shirts, including the upper ranks of the military, we can understand how they view the rest of us. the cost benefit far outweighs the suffering and infliction thereof. collecting so-called intelligence wasn't the goal, it was freekin' mano-y-mano, baby.

If Abu Ghraib is any indication, there was a party going on. It's what funnels down when sociopaths rule the roost. For all of us to see, this is what occurs when there is no gut check, when reason and morality is supplanted by rationalized barbarianism. When even a few accept torture as a noble act, and as politics is used to deflect the horror. As I understand it, nobody was being forced to torture the prisoners, so where does that leave us? With cowardice at the top, all the way to the bottom.

[indyleftist]

The debate on torture truly infuriates people like myself who do actually oppose torture.
And I get more upset with the democrats than the republicans

Republicans say they support torture and act that way
Democrats say they oppose it but don't. and infact what really is offensive is how so many pro-torture democrats will exploit this issue for their own talking points
Nancy Pelosi wouldn't even consider impeachment but she's going to prosecute for torture? Give me a break. There are no investigations needed to find out who ordered it. It was Bush and Cheney The democrats aren't going to do anything to them. We all know it

If you oppose prosecution for torture (IE you support torture) please do not pretend otherwise

[joeinvt]

If we can harass a President for years until we entrap him for trying hide marital infidelity and then conduct impeachment proceedings, we can survive an investigation of something of genuine importance such as condoning/ordering the use of torture.

[ManinVB]

When the truth comes out Pelosi is gonna run for the hills because she was at these briefings whether she payed attention or not she was told and must take responsibility for her lack of action taken.

[kimleehan]

Nancy Pelosi said that she or any other democrate was advised that waterboarding took place.

[mosh]

She said that she was told that the pentagon was looking into enhanced interrogation techniques, including water boarding, but was not using those techniques. A minor distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference when it comes to the law.

But even if Pelosi was told that these 'techniques' were actually being used, would she have behaved differently, i.e. somehow breached the classified nature of the briefings and blown the whistle on this illegal, immoral behavior?

Wouldn't that have been the patriotic/­noble/mora­l/brave thing to do, regardless of the consequences to her personally?

It seems that no one associated with these programs had the courage to risk being called unpatriotic by the blow hards on the right (remember this was just after 9/11) and do the moral thing and resign.

For instance, why didn't Colin Powell resign?

[mosh]

Didn't it concern Pelosi (especially given the nature of the Bush administration) that she was told that they were looking into these 'enhanced interrogation' techniques. I mean, really, can she honestly say that she didn't think they would use these techniques? Why else explore their efficacy? It feels like Pelosi is just hiding behind words - she must have know the intent to use these techniques was there or else why would they brief her.

But that's why we need investigations. All this needs to come out. And we have to find a way for our government and our elected officials to stop hiding behind the fig leaf of 'national security'.

[mosh]

I agree with everything you said except this - as yet we don't know why these torture policies were implemented - was it for our safety? Or was it for a far more nefarious purpose, i.e. trying to exact false confessions from detainees in order to establish a link between Al-quieda and Iraq.

You may be giving the bush administration too much credit by conceding that torture was used in order to 'keep us safe'. In fact, these torture policies appear to have had just the opposite effect in the middle east, ratcheting up recruitment for Al-quieda in Iraq. After all, even if the American public was kept in the dark, the Iraqis and Afghanis have known for a very long time what has been going on in our secret prisons and at GTMO and Abu Ghraib.

Knowing Dick as we do, it seems more likely that torture was used to elicit false confessions that might be used to justify the neocons' run up to war with Iraq.

[Christine Pelosi - Huffpost Blogger]

Point taken - I don't know whether it was for our safety but I give them the benefit of the doubt. All the more reason, it seems to me, for Team Obama to release the information more comprehensively. As your and other comments suggest, the Obama administration's still-evolving approach to torture investigations means we still don't have all the facts. This uneven declassification of information has intensified an already polarized debate dominated by partial truths and anonymous leakers violating their oaths of secrecy with no evidence to prove whether the leakers are liars. But the president can resolve this with a decision to more comprehensively declassify information about what was directed, done, and learned.

[mosh]

Thanks for responding, but, please, don't give them the benefit of the doubt. For too long we have given them the benefit of a shared purpose and humanity only to realize that that was not a common vision. And, yes, let the facts lead where they may - however painful for all and any among us.

[OlHippie]

In my view, this bag of worms will disappear without fanfare, because no one wants to shed too much light on it. Clearly, as much as we'd all like to, we can't just put Cheney, Bush, Rummy, and Condi in jail; we'll have to put everyone who actually did the waterboarding, or approved it, in there as well. Nuremberg Principle IV states:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

Seems pretty straight forward. Because Ms Pelosi's mom, and dozens of other democrats could have stood against these draconian interrogation methods when they were briefed, but did not for fear of being called unpatriotic, they are as guilty as Cheney.

[freddiefreeloader]

Provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Once Bush and his legal advisors said it was'nt illegal than they no longer had a moral choice, they did it or suffered the consequences, even though they were'nt in a life threatening situation, they still could and in some cases had life-long careers ruined.

Nuremberg principle #3 The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as head of state or responsible goverment official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Nuremberg principle # 2 The fact that international law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.---- It won't just disappear.

[kimleehan]

If its found that the Bush goverment Illegally invaded Iraq and tortured, than the U.S. can be forced by the international courts to pay reparations to those injured and the famillys of those killed. It could run into the billions if not more, maybe a trillion. Now that would sidetrack President Obama's economic recovery. Is'nt it funny how reparations and retribution sound so simular?

[Kaviraj]

You all talk about the law. Bribery is the substitute for law and law is the substitute for justice. Independent prosecutor - where do you find one? Let's assume you do. Where is the independent Judge?

[Lisa Solod Warren - Huffpost Blogger]

Here is how I feel about torture. I posted about it yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod-warren/trickle-down-torture_b_190837.html

[Emerald1943]

Nicely done, Lisa.

Rachael Maddow made the point a few nights ago that the policy to use torture seemed to sprout suddenly in all our prison facilities, both military and CIA-run. This, IMO, is very damning.

Those who would condone these acts should do a little research. There is much information not reported by the mainstream news media. Check out the ACLU site. They have been able to get access to a number of documents through the FOIA, some that are quite graphic in detail. I also believe that the report by the International Red Cross should be required reading by all Americans!

[Eres]

Excellent article, Lisa.

[-0013]

I suppose you and your mother have no problem with Obama ordering Predator strikes in Pakistan that kill thousands of people and main children?

Although, I guess technically that's not torture right?

[Emerald1943]

No, I do have a problem with it. But, concerning this issue, that is the old "apples and oranges" argument. GWB surely did his share....h­ow many innocent Iraqis died in his illegal, immoral war? Wasn't he the one who took us there to start with, based on a lie??? Unfortunately; President Obama is left with cleaning up the mess that Bush left for him. If Bush had continued in Afghanistan instead of invading another country, we would not be having this conversation!

[-0013]

So Obama can kill innocent people because you claim Bush did?

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Emerald1943]

Thanks, Christine, for your thoughtful article.

I promised myself that I would give myself a day's respite from the torture issue. I have spent the past several researching and reading information that has not been widely reported by the press. But I find myself back at it today.

I believe I am like a lot of Americans. We want to know. It is our right to know. We need to know. What our government does in our names does affect our lives whether it is readily apparent or not. Dismissing it or ignoring it will not make this go away. If it is swept under the rug, it will remain a cancer in our national body that will eat away at us...and, God forbid, allow it to happen again.

[langej]

The crime of torture rests oninterpretable phrases on which people of good conscience might disagree: sSEVERE pain or suffering, INHUMAN treatment, etc.

When a government says “procedure A is not torture under US and International law” and the following government says “procedure A is torture”, government employees are in deep Catch 22 doodoo if the new government’s definition is applied retroactively.

I am also scared by the idea of America prosecuting people for holding an opinion

[Emerald1943]

I would have to disagree with you. Simply because someone gave an "opinion" that a procedure is not torture does not make it "not torture". I assume that the procedure you're referring to is waterboarding. It has been considered illegal in this country for over 100 years. Because some ideologue sits in his air-conditioned office and gives his "opinion" does not make this anything less than torture.

Why did the previous administration feel the need to have a legal "cover" for their acts? They knew exactly what they were doing....a­nd it was ILLEGAL! This is not a game of semantics.

[Kaviraj]

He spouted the same drivel at the NYT thread. According to him it would set a precedent.
If the law is arbitrary opinion, by the same token as declaring it no longer the law, then he argued one should not leave trails like written documents. IOW break the law but don't get caught. They got caught redhanded and so they must face the arbitrary law that is the law of the land and the world.

[Rog49Thomas]

Putting aside the current political implications, the fundamental issue with turning over a rock on "bad behavior" by the government is that one might not be able to control just how extensive - both in time and practice - the findings are.

Those who think that "bad behavior" occured solely in the period 2001-2008 might be in for quite an unpleasant surprise.

(And, no, this is not an attempt to white wash President Pan's actions).

[LeftRight]

And if that's the case, then oh well. I'm sorry, but not punishing Nixon for his crimes led DIRECTLY to Regans crimes, and not punishing Reagan for his crimes led DIRECTLY to Bush's crimes....­. The reason why Bush was so much worse than Nixon is that he was able to build on everything Nixon did, and then push it a little farther!

If it turns out that Clinton or Obama did something wrong, I want THEM punished alongside Bush, because I don't EVER want this to happen again!!

[Rog49Thomas]

My post is not normative.

It is descriptive.

It explains why something won't happen not the morality of it not happening..
And one contrary note: I am not convinced that punishing A stops B from engaging in bad behavior.

The central issue here is one of philosophy.

Many great minds of the right and left have pondered the limits to which their partisans may go to "do the work of the Lord", "enhance the functioning of the historical dialectic" or protect the Republic, or save the Revolution,.
Most have come to a similar conclusion - that they are allowed to perform certain actions which are abhorrent when performed by their opponents. So in a nutshell it is not the sin but rather the identity of the sinner/actor that is important.

Trotsky summed it up in "Their Morals and Ours"

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

Christine -

Thank you.

There is NO substitute for honest and comprehensive PUBLIC Congressio­nal/Commis­sion hearings, as you suggest (NO immunity at all need be granted - see the Church Committee). Just as there is NO substitute for criminal investigations, and prosecution as warranted, by the DOJ. BOTH are vital, and long overdue.

Elizabeth de la Vega wisely cautions about the 'order of battle':

http://www.truthout.org/042009R

If we are to repudiate past abhorrent practices and ensure that the American people learn what was done in their names, the PUBLIC nature of a Congressio­nal/Commis­sion investigation is absolutely VITAL.

Senator Levin ran a secret investigation for 2 years in Armed Services - how much coverage did that get? Senator Feinstein has just started another SECRET investigation (for probably another year) in Intelligence - NARROWLY tailored, without a full look at the CIA's involvement - will any of it be publicly released? And now Harry Reid wants to insist that such SECRET investigations be the outer limit of Senate scrutiny of the actions of our government?

If Speaker Pelosi and Senator Leahy are thwarted by Reid and Obama, then even IF a special prosecutor is appointed by the DOJ, YEARS of SECRET grand jury investigations will ensue, with NO public accountability for the abuses of power, violations of trust, dereliction of duty and all the other NON-CRIME elements of this matter that we must repudiate as a nation, through CONGRESS, if we ever hope to enforce higher standards of government conduct.

[DenverJJ]

any intelligence gathering practices. It is enough to put it behind us. To start a "grand jury" like procedure that is open to the press is not in the national interest.