Just Desserts -- Sweetening President Obama on Why We Need a Truth Commission

Last month, 9/11 families were invited to the White House by President Obama to discuss the prosecution of alleged al-Qaeda operatives and Obama's intention to close GTMO within one year.

At the meeting, President Obama couldn't have been nicer. He was both accommodating and understanding. He easily spoke of such democratic principles of openness, transparency, and accountability--he even committed to criminally prosecuting individuals if credible evidence warranted doing so. (Admittedly, this question did not involve Executive administration personnel, it was asked about certain CIA agents and their role during the USS Cole bombing. Refreshing, nonetheless.)

President Obama told us everything we expected (and wanted) to hear from him given his campaign promises.

Truthfully, after shaking his hand, looking him in the eyes, and receiving his word that he would be committed to openness, transparency, and accountability, we were charmed and lulled into complacency.

So we weren't probing enough in our questioning of Obama regarding: the past overuse and misuse of the "state secrets" privilege, the swift, just, and successful prosecution of enemy combatants formerly held at places like Guantanamo and Bagram, the release of the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry of Congress' Investigation (JICI) into the 9/11 attacks, the swift declassification of many overly-classified 9/11 documents, and the Bush administration's broad use of renditions, indefinite detentions, and torture.

Given the Obama administration's decisions in the past two weeks, we should have been more direct and demanding in receiving concrete, specific answers to our questions from the President.

Because it would seem that the Wall Street Journal's editorial page might be alarmingly correct in saying that the Bush administration's anti-terror architecture is "gaining new legitimacy" as President Obama embraces many aspects of the Bush counterterrorism "approach."

That approach includes Obama's embracing of the state secrets privilege, renditions, indefinite detentions without trial, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques when given "additional authority" to do so, and potentially the continued use of military tribunals, not to mention the lingering prospect of keeping GTMO open after a newly-issued Pentagon report ordered by President Obama found that GTMO followed the Geneva Conventions.

Who would have thought an Obama administration would be lending legitimacy to Bush counterterrorism policies?

Of course, when you rely on information gathered by the Pentagon who is responsible for the abuses that were carried out at GTMO, one wonders about the very foundation of your judgment. The same goes for relying on the CIA to tell you whether torture works in extracting valuable information from detainees. I mean really, why would the Pentagon or CIA have any reason to lie?

Next time we're invited to the WH, perhaps we'd be better off meeting with Vice President Biden instead, since he seems more willing to look towards the future while also keeping at least one judgmental eye on the past.

On September 3, 2008, ABCNews reported: Vice President Biden promised that an Obama-Biden government would go through Bush administration data with "a fine-toothed comb" and pursue criminal charges if necessary. "If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation," he said, "they will be pursued, not out of vengeance, not out of retribution - out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no one, no attorney general, no president, no one is above the law." Go Joe!

Of course, the only problem is the venue by which we can hold an Attorney General, a Secretary of Defense, a Vice President, or even a President accountable.

Sure, a Truth Commission like the one suggested by Senator Leahy might do. But unfortunately it seems that not enough support (or legitimacy) is gathering in this direction particularly from the Obama administration. So, please, if you support the Truth Commission sign on.

Yet, perhaps we need more than signatures to make Senator Leahy's Truth Commission more appealing?

Recently reported by the NYTimes was that the Palestinian Authority had presented a declaration to the International Criminal Court (ICC), formally accepting the Court's "jurisdiction for an indeterminate duration over acts committed on the territory of Palestine since July 1, 2002 when the Court's authority began."

The Times further reported, "lawyers say such a declaration allows for the joining of the court on an ad-hoc basis and has been allowed before in the case of Sierra Leone, which is not a member."

I'm not here to debate whether the PA should be granted jurisdiction by the ICC.

But I do think the idea of applying for ad-hoc jurisdiction from the ICC is worth pursuing as a possible approach to holding the Bush administration accountable. At a bare minimum, it's a nice way to turn up the heat and send a strong message that many of us believe in holding Bush administration officials accountable for their past criminal acts.

And clearly, if given the choice between a Truth Commission or the International Criminal Court, I would assume Leahy's Truth Commission would suddenly become the more appealing alternative for all interested parties--past or present.

Undoubtedly, Vice President Cheney wielded way too much power and influence over President Bush.

But, right now, a little influence by our new Vice President might not be such a bad thing. Vice President Biden truly understands the importance of holding people accountable for their past bad behavior--no matter who they are or how politically uncomfortable that process may be.

Back during the Clinton administration, Vice President Gore and President Clinton famously dined for lunch together weekly. Maybe it's time for that tradition to start anew. The need for Senator Leahy's Truth Commission seems like just the topic for the dessert course.

Comments

[customgreen]

I agree that the new administration needs to be held to a different standard in keeping their promises. I would suggest however that they have only been in power for a little over a month. It takes time to undo bad things in Washington. You complaints are valid, but so are thousands of others. Throw it on the pile and they will get to it. It takes time.

[Thermodynamics]

I expect that the economy will continue to falter. Our Democrats will soon need to make it clear to the public that we got into this mess because of misdeeds of the Bush group. We need court proceedings - trials with witnesses and verdicts.

Much of the public can only accept information that comes with an official stamp of approval. It will take court proceeding to convince those people who cannot dig up the truth for themselves.

[Catothemuchyounger]

"But I do think the idea of applying for ad-hoc jurisdiction from the ICC is worth pursuing as a possible approach to holding the Bush administration accountable. At a bare minimum, it's a nice way to turn up the heat and send a strong message that many of us believe in holding Bush administration officials accountable for their past criminal acts.

And clearly, if given the choice between a Truth Commission or the International Criminal Court, I would assume Leahy's Truth Commission would suddenly become the more appealing alternative for all interested parties--past or present."

As some one who is strongly opposed to the U.S. joining the ICC I say, go ahead and try this. The ICC has been very controversial because many of us think it can be used as a propaganda tool against the US. The supporters of the ICC here pooh pooh the idea. Should the ICC get involved in the issue of investigating the Bush Administration actions in the war on terror, it will blow up in the ICC supporters faces and set back the chances of the US joining the ICC for the foreseeable future.

So by all means, find a way to get the ICC involved!

[Snuffleupagus]

Well said Kristin.

There is no excuse for allowing Bush to get away with murder and torture, none.
There is no reason to justify continuing on with his illegal torture and rendition policies.

Obama is not a god or a saint. He is one man, capable of good or bad deeds, like all of us.
He needs to hear from all of us. Do we want torture to end or not?

Stopping torture, and prosecuting torture abuses should be a lot easier than passing the stimulus. All it takes is will power.
So far the new President has not shown any desire to deal with this, and he would be far better served by Americans expressing their opposition to it rather than mindlessly praising him and blindly following him.

Americans all need to take some personal responsibility here and put pressure on the new administration to put an end to the Bush era criminality.

[lillybee]

Hold President Obama's feet to the fire Kristen - the idea that the President would even consider following "any" of George Bush's disgusting policies is unspeakable. I am a supporter of the President, but this is not only shameful, it is dishonest. This is not the change he promised. All this does is validate President Bush's policies - he must be smiling.
I think it's time for the President to change his Defense Secretary - he appears unwilling to stand up to the Pentagon, which makes one question his leadership. President Obama said that "he" would state the policies, and it was up to others to do their planning according to his wishes. It seems to be the other way around.

[Yermammy]

Appreciate this, Ms. Breitweiser. I've been advocating the use of the Rome Statute (I.C.C.) for six months now. The only reason I would resort to such a maneuver is it takes all politics away from the investigation and would arrive at a more equitable determination. Bush knew full well what he was doing when he disjoined from our treaty and not only shunned the World Court that Bill Clinton was signatory to, he actually sabotaged it by passing the "American Service Member's Protection Act" which actually gave Bush the power to USE ARMED FORCE TO RETRIEVE U.S. PERSONNEL FROM THE I.C.C.!! If Barack is trying to cover complicit Democratic leaders for their role in Bush's crimes, he will find this will blow up in his face. As far as a "truth" commission goes, it's insulting to the many books and mounds of evidence proving Bush's (et alia) guilt. When things get desperate in combat and the enemy is inside the perimeter, you call artillery fire on your own position and hunker down it a foxhole. Call the I.C.C. It's time.