President Obama's "Spock" Rationale On Iraq War Investigation Untenable

In a recent interview with Newsweek, President Obama mentioned seeing the latest Star Trek movie and that everybody was saying he was Spock. In another interview a while ago, the First Lady said, "The President is a very rational man."

This explains a lot. The President's refusal to investigate the Bush Administration's policies and actions relating to the Iraq War is the embodiment of Vulcan logic, free from messy human emotions and moral obligation.

The President has said he wishes the country to move forward instead of looking back--a nice mantra for our collective denial. Let's nail that to the wall, next to Bush Labor secretary, Elaine Chao's call to Iraqi women after their lives had been reduced to rubble by 'Shock and Awe': "In a democracy, the most important factor is energy." Taxidriver husband in Abu Ghraib? Daughter raped in US custody? Teenage son sodomized with a truncheon? Never mind all that. The cure for your blue funk, citizen of Iraq -- whom we saved from Saddam, (ignore that pesky photograph of your Lion with our Fox, Donald Rumsfeld) - is to move forward, without looking back ... with energy.

Other countries have seen the necessity for truth and reconciliation. In Congo and elsewhere, where perpetrators and victims of human rights violations and atrocities are often known to each other--frequently they're neighbors--truth and reconciliation forums are seen as a necessary instrument, one that allows perpetrators and victims to continue living in the same community.

"Taking into account collective memory and the inadequacies of the justice system, one must set up a mechanism which will help people to express themselves, giving truth its proper place. It would help people to freely discuss, as though in a family, those events in which they were the perpetrators or the victims, thus creating an atmosphere for reconciliation," said Gilberta Tandia, a human rights activist in Congo.

There are those who wish President Obama to release the remaining photographs that show, according to General Antonio Taguba, "torture, abuse, rape and every indecency." I am not one of them. I have lived and traveled in Muslim countries long enough to know that strong notions of modesty, shame, communal and familial judgement, and the fear of honor killings of women believed to have been raped in US custody, would prevent most Muslim men and women from supporting the release of these photographs.

But the Pentagon's recent denial that photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse do not include images of rape and sexual abuse is a confabulation. Following Donald Rumsfeld's testimony on the Abu Ghraib hearings in 2004, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina) said, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here." Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can thrash the British media and disavow information all he wants, but this isn't 1990 and this isn't Myanmar. There's this hardly worth mentioning, insignificant little archivist and global memory keeper that can call you a liar in less than a New York minute.

Accounts of these atrocities have already been reported in news outlets around the world including Guardian UK and Australia Age, and the images of rape have already been published in various online news outlets such as La Voz de Aztlan and Jihad Unspun, and posted on porn sites including the Norwegian based Sex and War. According to a 2004 article in La Voz de Aztlan, which was accompanied by photographs of the rape of a young girl in US custody, "It is now known that hundreds of these photographs had been in circulation among the troops in Iraq. The graphic photos were being swapped between the soldiers like baseball cards ... Speaking on condition of anonymity, one Mexican-American soldier told La Voz de Aztlan, 'Maybe the officers didn't know what was going on, but everybody else did. I have seen literally hundreds of these types of pictures.' 'Many of the pictures was destroyed last September when the luggage of soldiers was searched as they left Iraq,' he said."

Vice-President Dick 'We have nothing to apologize for' Cheney, and in the last few days, President George 'I will yield when my gut does' Bush, have made their case, with passion free from logic and legality, about the rightness of the Iraq War and US sponsored torture. We may continue to tolerate their justifications for the biggest American foreign policy blunder of all time, with the bewilderment we reserve for incoherent, delusional people. And we can keep lulling ourselves into a stupor with objective American journalism: "President Bush and VP Cheney say sun rises in the west, others disagree," and unquestioning American patriotism that makes no distinction between the honorable men and women who serve in the military, and the thugs and criminals among them.

But, the longer we wait to investigate how and why our government went to war on false premises, and why our military suspended fundamental American rules of war and violated international laws in the process, the more our national security will be compromised by those who are enraged by our actions and conduct.

The American people may not have the stomach for a lengthy war crimes tribunal to assign guilt and mete out punishment in these precarious times, but we should care enough to at least demand the truth. We ought to support a Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the Iraq War that includes Americans and Iraqis. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) has made such a proposal.

The model for truth and reconciliation work and its success is the commission that was established in South Africa to address the horrors of apartheid. According to South Africa's Justice Minister then, "it was a necessary exercise to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation."

President Obama promised transparency as the bedrock of his administration. He would do well to consider Captain Picard's words in Star Trek: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." President Obama's failure to address Bush policies and actions in Iraq makes his administration complicit in the Iraq War, and keeps us from doing repair with each other, with Iraqis, and with the wider world.

Comments

[tnkeating]

Gail, its obvious, President Obama doesn't want to reap what he sows, after his term is up. besides this would just be another side show distraction, we need to concentrate on current problems.

[priorato]

Yes, Obama should be faulted for not pursuing investigations of the false pretenses under which we invaded Iraq; the torture after 9/11; and warrantless wiretapping. These should be designated HIGH CRIMES no matter what your political ideology.

So, Obama does not have the stomach to call for investigations, but how about Congress? It seems all Congress can do is spend money and rubber stamp the Executive's policies. They did it under Bush and now they are doing it under Obama. With all the fraud, waste, abuse and corruption in Government, I cannot recall a single investigation since the Valerie Plame episode when lil Scooter Libby took the fall for Cheney, Addington and Armitage.

It seems sadly ironic that our Country invested years investigating Monica's dress but when our Government: 1) lies to us to get us into an intractable war that has claimed thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars; 2) when our Government sinks to new lows of humanity and routinely tortures detainees (some of which are completely innocent); and 3) spies on its own citizens without a warrant on a nationwide level -- there is not even a whimper of outrage...

[cam]

A Truth and Reconciliation commission would be inappropriate in the US. It works best in societies that have exhausted themselves in conflict and are committed to picking up the pieces. In South Africa it was a means of redress to people who were seeking closure more than justice. In the US any excesses and duplicity will become the rallying call for action. The basic premise is that the accused must tell the whole truth to win free of prosecution - it's a classic prisoner's dilemma - dammned if you do, damned of you don't. In the US they would use the rules of evidence to limit testimony to evidence on hand and they would collude in reframing the issue. The conflict would certainly spill outside the confines of the commission.

In short, once we start we are headed for a judicial investigation. We need to face the fact - if we commit to this we are not going to come out of it unscathed, and there might be substantial collateral damage amongst nations.

That said, I think we need to do it if there's any threat the fascist right will rise to power if we don't.

[WhatsThis]

It would be illogical for a society to allow lawlessness at its very top without determining the nature and scope of the violations. A fish rots from the head down.

Releasing the pictures may be too inflammatory, but an independent review with accurate but uninflammatory descriptions published might be a way around this issue.

The basic question is were war crimes or violations of the Geneva convention or U.S. Law committed. If so, who is responsible. The intelligence community needs to answer the question was torture more effective that other measures. And, the war criminal Cheney needs to make his arguments where they really count, in a court of law.

[BrotherOrchid]

Mr. Obama TEAR DOWN THAT WALL (of silence). " The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American democracy. For with this primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. As you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done, but also you must feel anxiety” > Winston Churchill, “Iron Curtain” Speech. (1946).

[Overd0g2]

He's learned something after being in office awhile. He's learned that tough choices were made under tough circumstances. He's also learned that he's going to have to make similar choices, and doesn't want to prosecuted for them later.

[Christine Noble]

Excellent post, and the Picard quote at the end says it all. Ultimately, it is not rational to surpress the truth, because when you do so, you deny yourself, and others, the knowledge needed to move forward in a logical manner. Human rights violations always need to be addressed, lest the violators, and others that would emulate them, might be led to believe that such behavior is acceptable. Punishment, so long as it is humane and appropriate, is a deterrent. I don't have enough space here to explain why inhumane and inappropriate punishment is not a deterrent.

[Yermammy]

Outraged now? I can top that.

An ALARMING development has occurred. The Senate has quietly passed a Bill that will take secrecy and flagrant ignoring of the rule of law to new levels. This bill will retroactively excuse all photos from the past and BAR ALL FUTURE PHOTOS of torture and detainee abuse. Remember FISA? DITTO!

**Obama's support for the new Graham-Lieberman secrecy law**



http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/


You MUST read this to understand how outrageous this Bill truly is (just look at the sponsors if you doubt my word). As of YET, this isn't included into the House version, but for anyone that remembers the Kabuki Theatre of Nancy Pelosi acting all "outraged" over the FISA Bill only to cave and pass it, this will be a very bad reminder that Congress is just enabling a totally lawless and unitary executive power.


Unless we ACT NOW, this amendment will be quietly inserted in the House Bill in Conference and then sent to the White House for CERTAIN APPROVAL.

I was truly impressed with Barack and through our help he became our President, but he's backing away from his "Change" meme so fast it's terrifying. Liberty is going to take a HUGE hit IF this passes!

[waitforme]

This sounds horrifying.

[DavidF07]

A "truth commission" is better than a "truth omission".

However, a special commission to look into the past is insufficient and bypasses a system that has worked (at least among the non-poor) for decades: courts.

Without prosecution, we disrespect the rule of law and disregard the method our Founders put in place to discover truth about criminal activity.

Did Cheney, Bush, Gonzales, Bybee, and others violate law? If there is a suspicion, investigate. If enough suspicions are confirmed, indict (or, in Bybee's situation, impeach). If the prosecution established proof beyond reasonable doubt, convict. If the accused is convicted, punish.

Obama is avoiding even the wimpiest of the options. Call him on it. "Transparency"? "Change"? I'll believe it when I see it.

[RRG64]

By their own admissions Cheney and Bush have violated US AND International law.

[Spud777]

The Law requires investigation with potential prosecution. CASE CLOSED, THIS IS NOT AN OPTIONAL CONSIDERATION OBAMA!

[Helzapoppin]

second

[waitforme]

"President Obama's failure to address Bush policies and actions in Iraq makes his administration complicit in the Iraq War, and keeps us from doing repair with each other, with Iraqis, and with the wider world."

Yes, and the more Obama seems to be protecting the perpetrators of an illegal way and illegal torture, the more he proclaims 'the need to move on', the more he is connected in the minds of potential terrorists with the Bush administration, an administration which certainly has inspired many more times the numbers of terrorists we could expect might bomb our country before 2001.

Even if we just want the terrorists to fall back to a manageable level we must prevail upon Obama to distance himself from all the wanton, egregious, murderous excesses of the Bush administration. Certainly we are far less safe, now, after the Bush years and, if Obama keeps up his denial, we will be increasingly in danger.

[waitforme]

TRUTH YES, RECONCILIATION, NO.

Truth, yes. but with whom do you reconcile?

1) We don't have the same situation here as in South Africa, this situation is not amenable to its 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' process. Iraqis who had horrors vested upon them by U.S. atrocities cannot forgive them, and should not forgive them, and, because they won't have to live among the military who did that, soon, don't have to forgive them. Too many military atrocity perpetrators have got off scott free. By the U.S. government.

a. Unless and until the government apologies sincerely to the Iraqis who remain alive no 'reconciliation process' can begin. Obama has shown no signs of doing that.

b. Until reparations have been made, fully, to the Iraqi people, by paying money for all deaths, rebuilding all buildings, putting back all infrastructure, no 'reconciliation process' can begin.
They don't love us enough to be in couples' therapy with us. They just want to see the back of us.

2) In this country, also, with whom should we reconcile? With the folie a deux group (Cheney, Rice, Bush, Rumsfeld) which perpetrated so many murders and terrors? Why shouldn't they be prosecuted for them, especially when they have already admitted their illegal, lying acts and we all know they did it? We don't love them and we don't want to be in couples' therapy with them. You can't 'reconcile' with someone you were never 'together' with in the first place.

[truthfulb]

I wish some of you could have the pressures of the president laid in your laps. war is not a good thing and crimes committed by our soldiers upon other people is terrible. I think everyone will get what they want but to do it is a process and as much as people scream for the truth I want the soldiers ot be home safe first. Also food for thought in every war or battle there is a cover up and it is done by all parties in the wars.

[rabiddog6708]

Justice delayed is justice denied. And the soldiers aren't coming home. They are going to Afghanistan instead...­...except for the 50,000 Obama intends on leaving in Iraq even after the so-called withdraw.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

I think the rational is - they don't want to set a precedence for prosecution, because they're afraid they may have to face it one day.

[lastpost]

Spock is a fictional character generated in the imagination of a story writer. If Barack actually used logic he would realise something. That delaying dealing with matters, risks them being resurrected in far more fearsome form. At some future date.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Spock was a fictional character in a fictional universe with fictional problems.
For Spock and the others there was only one problem at a time, a finite time in which to solve this problem, and a clear solution.

Obama is a leader of a country in crisis, with multiple crises. Obama lives in the real world whether the problems are complex as are the solutions.

I say let me do what he thinks best. If DOJ disagrees, they can pursue criminal investigations. If Congress wants truth commissions, let them do that. Obama is not the only person working in DC. Others' have responsibilities and duties, too.

People want vengeance for what Bush and his crew did. And they want it now. They will have to wait.

[rabiddog6708]

The Nazis really could have used you and that sort of thinking at the end of WWII, at Nuremberg.

[JimR]

I hate Bush and Cheney, but a Nazi comparison? Really? Good lord.

[StillIRise]

I agree. Investigation and prosecution of the Bush policies are not within the domain or authority of the President. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of Congress and the DOJ. Even as President Obama says that he wants to look forward, he has nonetheless released the torture memos and will release the torture photos to the proper authorities (even though the public will not see them). In other words, he is laying the foundation for both the investigation and prosecution, even though he himself will not be conducting either.

I think people who are criticizing President Obama for not pushing for an investigat­ion/prosec­ution, are not only exposing their own misunderstanding of how our government works, but also the misplaced burden they have put on this President to address every concern they're concerned about and to fix everything that's wrong! Some seem to think that President Obama actually IS the Messiah!!!

[rolodex]

It was the responsibility to pursue Bush/Cheney for wrongdoings while they were in office, via impeachment. The primary presumption being that the Justice Department, who really are the ones responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of the law, is virtually incapable of investigating the Whitehouse, (see 1973, Saturday Night Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre) and thus the only real recourse against a sitting president is impeachment.

Bushco is out of power now and it is not the role of Congress to investigat­e/prosecut­e. It is back to the Justice Dept, with Obama as the ultimate boss. It is the responsibility of the Executive Branch to enforce the laws, and thus Obamas responsibility.