Anything Less Than Absolute Moral Clarity from Democrats Will Enshrine Bush's Abuses
Over the past four months there have been a series of flare-ups between the Obama administration and the progressive activist community, centered mainly around the new administration's willingness (or lack thereof) to reverse Bush-Cheney's radical excesses in the realm of civil liberties, secrecy, detainee treatment, interrogation, and counter-terrorism.
Ever astute and incisive, Digby raises what I think is the critical point in this entire debate:
The argument against torture is slipping away from us. In fact, I'm getting the sinking feeling that it's over. What was once taboo is now publicly acknowledged as completely acceptable by many people. Indeed, disapproval of torture is now being characterized as a strictly partisan issue, like welfare reform or taxes.
Ari Melber, my former Kerry campaign colleague, takes a parallel tack, arguing that there should be no debate here; torture is illegal. Even Bush acknowledged that.
Glenn Greenwald, an indispensible voice on this topic, says bluntly:
Ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping.
As has been the case for years, Democratic leaders, operating within the Washington bubble, misconstrue the concerns of the netroots and often privately dismiss them as the rantings of immature outsiders and political neophytes.
But as always, the progressive community, a far more efficient thinking machine than a handful of strategists and advisers, is looking ahead and raising a unified alarm. The message is this: anything less than absolute moral clarity from Democrats, who now control the levers of power, will enshrine Bush's abuses and undermine the rule of law for generations to come.
Setting aside all the campaign slogans about hope and change, what Obama really signifies is a razor sharp break from Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Rice, Rumsfeld, Addington, Libby, Bybee et al. After eight years of damage to the fabric of our Constitution and our nation, the entire point of a new face, a smart, youthful, inspiring Democratic president is to completely and totally reject the Bush years, to reject the lawless behavior, the Orwellian rationales, the blatant disregard of the Constitution.
Neglecting to do so, and leaving any doubt about where Democrats stand on these issues, is profoundly detrimental to the country.
Back to Digby:
We are in big trouble when torture becomes just another political football. It's the kind of thing that turns powerful empires into pariah nations.
Exactly. The underlying issue here is not these intermittent battles between the new administration and the progressive community (fodder for the media and conservatives) but whether the White House and Democratic leaders comprehend the repercussions of allowing DC's complex internal pressures and maneuverings -- which are largely invisible to outsiders -- to obfuscate the Bush administration's excesses.
Failing to make a clean break from the Bush years will deprive America of the one thing it needs most: an affirmation of the rule of law and the consequent reclaiming of moral authority.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Absolute moral clarity" is something that occurs in the minds of ideologues, politically correct apostles on the right and left, and perhaps God. I will posit that incest, serial murder, and child molestation can rise to the level of "absolute" moral clarity, but few if any complex political issues do.
I personally doubt the wisdom of releasing more torture pictures. Obama supporters come in all shapes and sizes. I am one of them, and I do not expect or even WANT him to enact my personal agenda in a knee jerk the way so many "progressives" and lefty supporters do. People who are sure they're always right, and demand that others agree, soon lose their credibllity and become humorless, tiresome drones.
I assume you are sure you're right about this?
Yep, I'm a real radical and need to be reviewed before posting my comments. Also, I'm still "new" after, what, 2 years????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Would the torture and rape of children at Abu Ghraib meet with the bar you've set for "absolute moral clarity"?
Justice of some measure NEEDS to be carried out on those who created the torture policy and orderedd it.
NOT out of the desire for revenge but to restoe the ideals on which America was really built.
There really should be NO debate. Justice not for revenge but justice with remorse and sadness that these people carried out these acts.
I sincerely wonder if you had a child ( that child being in the military) that was held by the terrorists if you would ask that they be waterboarded if you thought it would free your child! Someting to think aobut my dear!
NO, I guess you would just tell the president, No, thank you sir, just let then behead my child!
If you feel that a law is unjust, you should lobby to change it.
Not break it, and then expect to suffer no consequences.
I would support President Obama if he took the political plunge and really went about routing out everything that was morally and legally wrong with what the Bush administration did to bring us to this sorrowful situation. Obama campaigned on change and that's why I voted for him. I'm not pleased with his moderation. Go for it, Barack, kick some butt.
Absolutly - are we a nation of men or a nation of animals.
A nation of cowards
There's no reason to insult animals here.
MORAL CLARITY ON THE USE OF TORTURE
IYou're abducted by vicious bloodthirsty terrorists who are slowly and sadistically killing you by torture: snipping off toes and fingers, drilling holes into your flesh and burning your body with acid-as happened to a young Jew in France. I have a terrorist in custody who knows of your whereabouts; he has a moral obligation to rat on his friends and give me the information that could save you. He refuses to cooperate thus placing your life in danger. I then torture the truth out of him thus forcing him to do what is morally right. I save you from your nightmare. Who in their proper mind could find fault with me for this? For compelling a terrorist to do what is right and cooperate in the saving of a human life? What fool would dare accuse me of being no better than a terrorist, of being morally depraved, deserving of prosecution and punishment? Who would be that dumb, that stupid, that senseless? Who?
This is the Jack Bauer, stack-decked case you use to prove you point about the ambiguity of moral clarity? Puh-lese. What does you scenario have to do with reality if you're making it to prove a point?
First, you present us with one guy who knows everything his torturers need to rescue me. One guy has the key. He knows it all. One guy. Doesn't generally work that way in the real world, but it's your fairytale, so we'll go with it.
Now, we have to accept that torture "gets the truth out of him." Hmmm, a lot of CIA professional might disagree with you, but again, your dream, you can make up the players anyway you'd like.
What's next in your philosophical ammunition belt ... "Ginger or Maryanne?"
If I used torture to extract crucial information from a terrorist that resulted in saving your life would you consider my illegal method morally right or morally wrong?
The problem with your scenario is that you presume that torture will elicit the truth. It will not. John McCain himself demonstrated that. He freely admits that the Viet Cong broke him--but even after they did, he gave them precisely NOTHING in terms of useful data.
Until you get your presumptions in line with reality, your argument that torture is sometimes necessary is 100% bogus.
It sounds like a scenario on "24," not the way our nation was ever intended to function. People will say anything to get the torture to stop.
When the CIA uses tortrure, we lose any moral right to complain about the abuses being committed by dictatorships around the world
It's not even a question of whether the end justifies the means because torture has been proven to be an inefficient way of obtaining information
Appearently you haven't read McCain's bio. He broke under torture. McCain recently said that when lives are at stake "you gotta to do what you gotta do." As President he would have used waterboarding or worse in a national emergency.Not to do less would violate the spirit and word of the Constitution: "Defend and Protect."
You no doubt also believe killing people actually saves people. That would be the mind of a terrorist at work.
BTW, is your kettle black?
"IYou're abducted by vicious bloodthirsty terrorists who are slowly and sadistically killing you by torture: "
It would behoove you to note that among the "enhanced interrogation techniques used by Bushco. is sleep deprivation. In your scenario, do you see yourself lasting long enough for a terrorist to be sleep-deprived? I'm not talking about being awakened at 3 in the morning, it takes over a week to get anything.
"I have a terrorist in custody who knows of your whereabouts; he has a moral obligation to rat on his friends and give me the information that could save you. He refuses to cooperate thus placing your life in danger. I then torture the truth out of him thus forcing him to do what is morally right. I save you from your nightmare. Who in their proper mind could find fault with me for this?"
Let's up the stakes. Let's say that the captured terrorist was fed misinformation, and that when he spews that misinformation, the police sent on that wild goose chase take longer to get the real dirt. Are you still going to act so heroic?
You are presuming that torture always works. There has been so much misinformation spilled by torturees that the presumption becomes false.
Instead of hypotheticals, I give you reality.
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=911
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/maher_arar/index.html
"...They used the cable on the second and third day, and after that mostly beat me with their hands, hitting me in the stomach and on the back of my neck, and slapping me on the face. Where they hit me with the cables, my skin turned blue for two or three weeks, but there was no bleeding. At the end of the day they told me tomorrow would be worse..."
Consider that you, an innocent person, gets rendered.
Nothing personal, Buckey, but I find the use of the phrase "moral clarity" and the word "Democrats" used in the same sentence to be offensive. If there is a more morally relativistic group on the planet than American Democrats, I haven't seen it.
Then you need to look to your right, at today's GOP. They'll tell you torture is morally wrong, like when the Vietnamese did it ... until its right, when we did it.
The Vietnamese used torture to advance the cause of oppression and tyanny. We use it to defend our freedoms and advance the cause of liberty in the world. The difference is huge!
"If there is a more morally relativistic group on the planet than American Democrats, I haven't seen it."
Where are the Republicans, If not on Planet Earth?
The Dems are SOOO far ahead...................
The need to disassociate ourselves as a nation from the Bush years is beyond question. What is in question, however, is how far Obama needs to go to do that.
Using the release of the uber-graphic photos from Abu Gharaib as an example, can Obama - and we as Americans by extension - present a crystal clear image of an administration and nation that is entirely at odds with the actions of the last 8 years WITHOUT showing the photos? I'd like to think that's at least possible.
If the photos are shown will the far-right suddenly come to their senses and publicly abhor what they're seeing with their own eyes? Doubtful; they've already moved quite comfortably from "we never tortured" to "waterboarding isn't torture" to "yeah we tortured -- and it saved lives" without missing an intellectual beat.
My fear is that the more we rely on super-heated rhetoric to shine a light on these serious breeches of law and ethics by the Bushes, the more it becomes fodder for the partisan talking heads and the faster it ends up being merely an issue of policy, to be agreed on or against, depending on your partisan leanings.
I am thankful not to be teaching U.S. Government and History now. I just couldn't pull this sham off. Young people can see through this cover-up. What they must be thinking. America, you are better than this. Or so we were taught.
If you want to have moral clarity and the 'rule of law', then enforce the laws pertaining to entry through our borders, and then fire Nancy Pelosi.
If you don't, your words are, shall I say, just words.
Yes you RETHUGS keep harping on Pelosi. Keeps you alert and on top of things huh? Close your mind and then go back and drink some more of the KOOLADE ex vp dictch chaney is pouring for you............
The myth that America is 'the land of the Rule of law' is just that--a myth. Just ask any poor black man. What is really taking place (on a global level) is that America is desperately looking for a way to save it's ass; after Bush. America is caught between a rock and a hard place. It can't, (it feels), afford to expose it's hypocrisy. Trouble is--it's global knowledge.
i agree that "America as the land of the rule of law" is a myth, not reality. But it's also an aspiration that began with the founding fathers and continues today in the hearts of many Americans. And yes we are trying to save our ass after eight years of Bush. What's wrong with that? Admitting guilt, acknowledging hypocrisy, uncovering the dirty secrets - these are necessary steps in forming a more perfect union. Throughout American history we have tried to overcome our imperfections - from slavery to segregation, exploitation of native Americans, Japanese internment camps, McCarthyism, police brutality - all with the goal of moving closer to the aspiration of equality, human dignity and the rule of law. Each of these problems embarrassed us and made us hypocrites in the eyes of the world. Yet each of these problems was eventually addressed through honest self-examination that we, as a nation, had to endure. In some cases we are still struggling with the problem of how to right the wrongs of history. But the one thing that we cannot do is to pretend the problems will go away if we hide them, ignore them or pretend they don't exist.
Bravo! No one with half a brain pretends America is perfect. America is not perfect. But we put on paper our determination to try to be perfect. Our task, in continuing to work to achieve that "more perfect union," is to clean up the messes others have left behind. Bush and Cheney left us a whole mess of dirty laundry. What has made America unique is that in the past, we've been willing and able to clean it and air it out for all to see. My own biggest disappointment about Obama so far is that, as an erstwhile professor of Constitutional Law, he should know that and should be more than wiling to lead the way to "do the laundry."
Obama and those who advise him are making a HUGE mistake by trying to block investigations into torture and by adopting Bush era secrecy. This will do grave damage to our country and it will do grave damage to an Obama presidency. Just like the greedy CEO's that we read about in the news, the people surrounding Obama are thinking short term when they should be thinking long term. They also should remember what's good for the country is good for Obama. Covering up torture is NOT good for the country.
Even Republican Ron Paul thinks that it's good for the country to get to the bottom of what happened.
http://democracity.blogspot.com/2009/05/david-gregory-advocates-no.html
I am in no doubt that you are correct and yesterday I signed Senator Leahy's petition.
The bushtruthcommision requesting investigation into the Admin. Then I wrote a comment directly to Pres. Obama pointing out the same things actually asking him to support the petition and hold these people accountable. We cannot go forward until it is accomplished.
This mess we have been left with will continue and the GOP is going to keep at it for many years causing disruptions throughout the Country and the World. Pres. Obama needs to help clear the air and stop the greedy Corporations, Lobbists, Wall Street elistist from directing us back into capitalism.
It's our only chance to save our Country. Actually, it the only chance for him to become the President we need.
What is beginning to turn my stomach is not the discussion regarding torture but the fact we are having a discussion about it at all. Torture is against the law - it is against the Geneva Convention - it is not the "American way" - it is not how well torture works or not. Torture is against the beliefs of the citizens. Our country executed people after WW 2 and Korea. No discussion about whether it works or not - it is against the law and anyone involved - from the torturers to the people at the top (Democrat or Republican" must be held responsible and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is what the people of America and the world expect. There should be no politics involved - no thought about the next election or political parties - just do it it's the right and legal thing to do.
Well said !! No attempt to regain Americas reputation abroad will survive, if the new administration fails to live up to its promise and returns to the rule of law - not to mention common decency. At the moment America has no place as a moral or legal leader of the free world.
When did america ever have a great rep. abroad? Go ask the Iranians. Or the Panamanians, or the Chileans, or the haitians
I wish we could be better about this but I can't see administration prosecuting unless they see the political risk to themselves of prosecuting outweighs the risk of "looking forward"
It was at least as far back as the Iraq war funding debate that we should have all realized that the current Democratic establishment has rationalized that building their own political power is in the long run a higher moral calling than the immediate issues of funding a war or prosecuting war criminals.
A couple weeks back Gwynne Dyer wrote a column comparing Obama to Ford ... and put forth the concept that:
"Moreover, the new government, faced with the decision to prosecute the criminals or not, will
always put the stability and security of its own rule first"
citing South Africa and the Russian/Soviet shift as additional examples ..
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20The%20Dream%20of%20Justice.txt
Excellent comment. I have long held the opinion that the trouble with Democrats is that they think that whatever is good for the Democratic party is good for the country. Likewise, the Republicans' problem is that they think that anything that's good for the country is good for the Republican party. Of, course, they're both wrong.
The only reason not to go ahead with war crimes investigation in my opinion is the fact that everything will grind to a halt!
Nothing will get done, maybe for a couple of years, as congress sifts through the evidence, if they can find it all, we know that Cheney was destroying the VP office logs, in direct violation of the Presidential Records Act, but since they were ignoring any laws that slowed them down anyway..........
This will consume Congress, it will be the lead until the public gets bored, then in 2012, we can welcome president Palin, because people will have forgotten by then....
My greatest fear is that my grandson will be learning a "revised" history of the last eight years if notihing is done to prevent it. The last 8 years needs to be fully investigated and documented for an accurate accounting. Also if Republican leadership totally disregarded the constitution and mistreated prisoners, used "enhanced" methods and illigal detainment without reprsentation, and are not held accountable for this, the next time they come to power there is a chance that those things could be turned on the American people. It has been demonstrated through history that when people are not held fully accountable for their actions then those actions only become worse in the future.
Obama doesn't operate in a vacuum. All ways to roll back policies have their own implications. Obama has a much larger legal team than you or I, and I'm willing to bet there are more than a few things in which they are seeking ways to reverse things without creating bigger muck-ups for the branch. And you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the system if you think "Obama makes new rules --> bad things like this stop happening" is how it works. Anything he does would be reversible down the line. The office is flexible and poorly defined by the Constitution. A powerful executive is not in and of itself a bad thing. Elected officials like Bush are a bad thing. Would you be up in arms over presidential ability to mandate progressive reforms without the concessions and watering down and pork of the legislature? Would you throw fits over EOs instituting consequences for golden parachutes or industrial pollution? No, but when the power authorizes despicable things, we stop the despicable things. We're not going to torture people under Obama. This responsibility for future officials is on US, the electorate, to not let in ethically-challenged megalomaniacs because we're single-issue voters, or ill-informed, or selfish or prejudiced or angry or lazy. Shielding Bush is as much about shielding the office. And he wants to avoiding looking vindictive.
See Peter Daou's Profile
You write, "And you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the system if you think "Obama makes new rules --> bad things like this stop happening" is how it works."
If your comment is in response to the original piece, my post isn't directed singularly at the president but at the administration and the entire Democratic leadership.
The main thrust of my post is this (aimed at 'Democrats' not just Obama):
"...anything less than absolute moral clarity from Democrats, who now control the levers of power, will enshrine Bush's abuses and undermine the rule of law for generations to come."
Pelosi's lie-fest about what she was told & when isn't helping us with the "moral clarity" issue.
So you believe the CIA over Pelosi and Graham?
The former administration had no real reason to keep Pelosi in the loop, she was not speaker until 2007!
But she was ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Oversight Committee (when it was controlled by the Republicans) and she was one of the so-called Gang of 4: Chair & Ranking Minority members of both House & Senate who were briefed on everything that was going on, which was against the law requiring info be transmitted to the whole committees.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
