Note to Progressives: Let a Panel Investigate Torture Charges

Although he is anything but a dispassionate, neutral newsman, I enjoy watching Keith Olbermann because he's my personal antidote for Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

But sometimes he has no sense of proportion, no concept of real politics. Olbermann is, like many on the left, what Lenin might have called an infantile progressive.

So I was not surprised by his special comment calling on President Barack Obama to prosecute George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al. for commanding practices now known to be torture. Not surprised, but disappointed.

Not that there's any question about the facts. "We tortured [Mohammed al-] Kahtani," according to Susan Crawford, the convening authority of military commissions. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture."

This, from a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Cheney was secretary of defense.

But the last thing Obama needs, as he sets out to restore the economy, end the war in Iraq and ramp up the offensive against Al Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is a blistering, partisan fight over practices that his incoming Attorney General Eric Holder has denounced.

That would place a pristine sense of liberal morality above the pragmatic demands of progressive policy. And it would be crippling - dooming the Obama administration to deadlock and likely demise.

As Obama told George Stephanopoulos the other day: "What we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

But Olbermann and others on the head-banging left are not entirely wrong. It is important to take a stand against the policies and practices of the Bush administration that have corroded American prestige throughout the world.

What is needed is a smart, political course of action. And there are plenty of precedents. Obama should appoint a special counsel whose mission is to investigate U.S. military and intelligence practices and to report to a bipartisan, blue-ribbon commission made up of "respected" elders like George Mitchell, Warren Christopher, James Baker, Chuck Hagel, Madeline Albright, etc.

After receiving data, reports and public testimony from the special counsel, this commission would write a report and recommend a course of action to the Justice Department.

If the Justice Department then brought charges against principals who had approved illegal, torturous activities, these would be the result of recommendations from a nationally-respected special commission - not subject to charges that it was a partisan witch-hunt by the Obama administration.

Is this a political course of action that dodges confronting the moral issue head on? Absolutely. Is there anything wrong with that? I don't think so. Not if you want Obama to succeed and you believe we must, as a nation, repudiate the despicable policies and practices of the Bush administration.

Comments

[tompoe]

Holder can address issues without such panel nonsense. Accountability means responding to Holder, not some panel.

[flacon]

Respected elders? You should add Sens. Kennedy, Boxer and Shumer just to add a semblance of fairness to the prior administration.

[indyleftist]

Yeah I was gonna say something about his selection for torture investigators as well.
"George Mitchell, Warren Christopher, James Baker, Chuck Hagel, Madeline Albright" All approve of Torture and infact have personally engaged in it, with the possible exception of Chuck Hagel, not because he has morals but because I don't believe he was ever in the position (the executive branch) to actually take part.
James Baker is the really funny one. How on earth is he considered respected among so called "liberal" columnists? Yes, I'm quite sure James Baker will get to the bottom of it LOL

[Snuffleupagus]

The Warren Commission
The 9II Commission
The Tower Commission

To open a debate on the true nature of the crimes related to those Commissions would be a waste of time, not suitable for a comments blog.

But is undeniable that all three of those investigations had some members with entanglements and conflicts which in the end cast serious doubts on their credibility.

We need an honest independent investigation.
We don't need old insiders like Warren Christopher, James Baker, Chuck Hagel, Madeline Albright, etc.
Why should we do it half assed, if we are really searching for the truth?

An hour with google on those three commissions would be a great place for people to get some perspective on how these investigations can turn into a dog and pony show.
Moving forward does not mean that we fail to learn from history, and history teaches us much about bipartisan blue ribbon commissions.

[indyleftist]

"That would place a pristine sense of liberal morality above the pragmatic demands of progressive policy. And it would be crippling - dooming the Obama administration to deadlock and likely demise."

This is a very telling statement
Being against the torture of our prisoners apparently is a fringe issue of little importance
What is important is how it all works politically for the democratic party

I do wish you would just admit that you support torture instead of pretending you want to investigate with a "blue ribbon committee.­"