Will New Torture Revelations Worsen Obama’s Relations With Left, Or Repair Them?
Today and over the weekend we were treated to a bunch of new revelations about the Bush torture program, and depending on how the White House handles them, this could be awful timing for President Obama, given the already-simmering anger on the left over health care.
In case you didn’t catch this, today’s New York Times reports that an internal Justice Department review has recommended the reversal of nearly a dozen cases in which the department under Bush decided not to prosecute CIA employees for abuse of detainees — something that could fuel more calls for prosecutions.
What’s more, today is the day that the big 2004 CIA inspector general’s report is going to be released, shedding further light on torture techniques and potential illegalities. This report, according to weekend news stories, will detail that CIA officers staged mock executions and threatened a prisoner with a gun, in violation of federal torture statute.
Right now, it’s becoming clearer that Obama’s handling of health care, specifically his conciliatory approach towards Republicans and his apparently wavering commitment to the public option, is causing a real erosion of support among Democrats and liberals. Now the debate over torture is suddenly about to flare up again, intensifying liberal demands for some sort of accounting, something Obama has repeatedly said he wants to avoid.
The health care failings that have eroded Obama’s support on the left could, paradoxically, increase pressure on the White House to pursue some sort of prosecutions in order to avoid further angering the base. And if Attorney General Eric Holder does take this course of action, it could actually repair relations with liberals. But if he doesn’t things will only get worse with the left. And the President was hoping for a quiet vacation…
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
It seems to me whether relations worsen or improve will mostly be a function of what information is revealed and how Obama responds to it.
So far his intense lack of interest in investigating war crimes is the most disturbing aspect of his character. I expected him to behave this way, but it still distrubs me. He is quite close to simply enabling war crimes, which is itself a war crime.
The only saving grace to it all is that there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.
Dylan Ratigan had four guests discussing this a few minutes ago on MSNBC. The ACLU man was clear, The CIA guy was astonisgingly open to the release; Jonathan Capehart started out with a classic ChuckToddism: don’t look back, it’s all politics. The ACLU smackdown was a thing to behold. Without the camouflage provided by Morning Blow and the Self-Satisfied – at which Capehart is a regular who dishes out CW with abandon – he was forced to backtrack.
Chuckie got his own comeuppance on Real Time last Friday.
Foster: I saw that. Capehart did not have a response to the ACLU smackdown.
Capehart is now a useful fool for MSNBC and has given up all pretense of being an actual journalist. He goes along with anything Joe Scarborough says in the morning and Harry Reid has more of a spine than he does.
As for the prosecutions, don’t get it twisted. The Obama administration could prosecute the rank and file officers all they want, first of all progressives won’t see that as satisfying because we want the people who ordered the torture not the “few bad apples” like they did with Abu Ghraib. Secondly I don’t think there is a thing the administration could do to change the outlook if they don’t include a public option in health care reform. The only thing these prosecutions will or won’t do is affect whether or not we belive President Obama is truly committed to the rule of law but I just can’t see away that it will affect the health care debate positively or for that matter negatively with progressives than it already would be.
A must read from Yglesias
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/reform-is-hard.php
Greg, love – you’re guilty here of something you’ve come down on the MSM for doing – monolithic thinking about “the Left.” Remember all the “angry left” media nonsense that you debunked?
Well…
See, I haven’t forgotten how very goddamn awful things were here from about 2001 to 2006 or so when Bush deflated and the GOP lost it’s locomotion. Things were as bad here as I have never imagined they ever would be. It’s so very different now, even if it’s not perfect.
So be careful about lumping “the left” together like that – I’m a leftist. I’m not upset with the administration about anything at the moment. I just want them to succeed because I don’t believe this country can survive another Repug administration/majority – especially not under these circtumstance. I really think we’d be goose-stepping into the future cause the ultra loonies would be so empowered if Obama fails.
Bernie – thanks for the link to Matt. I am so damn happy to see someone else saying that because it just defies common sense to constantly berate Obama for everything – he has to work with the rest of the government, in the first place.
He isn’t George W or Cheney –
But mainly, I don’t see how whaling on Obama constantly advances out agenda one inch.
“CIA officers staged mock executions and threatened a prisoner with a gun.”
And a power drill!
But do you realize who ti was that they threatened? An interesting tidbit from The NY Times report:
“That could mean a look at the case in which C.I.A. officers threatened one prisoner with a handgun and a power drill if he did not cooperate. The detainee, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was suspected as the master plotter behind the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole.”
Seems to me that after all is said and done Holder/Obama are not going to go after the architects of the program, so the very least they are going to do is reopen investigations into individual CIA abuses. I don’t think many on either side are going to find that to be very satisfying.
Tena, my sentiments exactly.
But do you realize who ti was that they threatened?
And that assertion is the problem with how those who support torture are thinking about all this.
“You can’t torture, except it’s okay to torture him.”
It never stops there. Furthermore, torture only produces whatever answer the torturer wants to hear and so it isn’t a useful way to gain information.
On the other hand, it’s the hallmark of totalitarianism. As Orwell said, “The purpose of torture is torture.”
It’s not an interrogation technique. It’s a technique of oppression.
@oddjob: I made no such assertion, and I don’t approve of threatening to kill someone, and that was already illegal anyway, and you aren’t too bright, are you?
re: Capehart, Todd and all the rest….I think DC journalists need to be term-limited.
Loved the way Jeremy Schahill went after Todd on Real Time. Did you notice how Todd was staring at him as the credits rolled?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/142155/jeremy_scahill_slams_nbc%27s_chuck_todd_on_%22real_time_with_bill_maher%22/
Obama’s cred with the left will depend on his willingness to prosecute those most criminally culpable. If Obama and Holder go after only low level grunts who did what they were ordered, hanging them out to dry in order to insulate the real criminals, how is that different from what Cheney/Bush did?
It sounds as if the CIA’s IG report will provide even more evidence of criminal behavior at the highest levels of the Bush administration. If they have knowledge of a crime and they fail to prosecute, in what way can Obama/Holder claim any moral superiority to Cheney/Bush?
I am a big supporter of President Obama, but he needs to grow a spine and do the primary job he was elected to do – protect and defend the Constitution. The best way to prevent the excesses of the Bush administration from ever reoccurring is to vigorously prosecute criminal conduct. If Nixon had been sent to prison, maybe it would have given Reagan, Cheney, and Bush the lesser pause in their lust for a return to an imperial presidency.
@Gasman: “It sounds as if the CIA’s IG report will provide even more evidence of criminal behavior at the highest levels of the Bush administration.”
No, I don’t think so (but could be wrong).
What you have first is the CIA IG report documenting abuses of prisoners. The Bush Dept of Justice decided not to prosecute. Then you have a Justice Dept internal investigation that took exception to the legal underpinnings of the so-called “torture program but appears to, at most, recommend referrals to bar associations. Then you have the Justice Dept Ethics Office recommending that some of the original cases the CIA IG discussed should be reopened.
You are not really getting close to prosecuting the so-called architects here.
I made no such assertion
And I never indicated you did.
@oddfellow: Well, you certainly wrote that I asserted something?
I apologize for misinterpreting where you were going with your comments. The American use of torture as a tool of the state is particularly offensive to me and I am quite tired of seeing assertions that its use is just wonderful as long as it’s being done against “them”.
Your comment initially read to me as though it was yet another of such statements, but I see now that it can be interpreted in other ways.
sbj,
Don’t be so quick to assume that there will be no prosecutions. How much evidence of criminal conduct does there have to be before you would concede that prosecutions are possible? Cheney/Bush sanctioned torture, mock executions, violations of Constitutional and international law, Cheney advocating the use of Federal troops as law enforcement, suspension of habeas corpus, etc., etc., etc.
How much evidence do we need? Obama may not want to prosecute, but if there is overwhelming evidence that Cheney/Bush knowingly violated the law, Obama and Holder may not be able to avoid it.
It may not yet happen, but with each new revelation it becomes more likely. Remember, there is a small army of really angry liberals that will be just as vocal with Obama as we were with Cheney/Bush. I proudly count myself among that camp.
“…it’s becoming clearer that Obama’s handling of health care, specifically his conciliatory approach towards Republicans and his apparently wavering commitment to the public option, is causing a real erosion of support among Democrats and liberals.”
That’s some pretty darn delusional logic there. Not to mention one of the most strikingly naïve political analysis I’ve seen online today.
Imagine reading in 2005: “…it’s becoming clearer that Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, specifically his conciliatory approach to Democrats outraged about Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and his apparently wavering commitment for cross border military raids into Syria is causing a real erosion of support among Republicans and neo-conservatives.”
Yeah, I know the metaphor has limits. Nevertheless, wouldn’t you think the author was in serious denial as to what the White House should be really focused on?
First – only about 1 in 10 Americans is actually overall to the Left of President Obama on most issues. Like I suppose he could nationalize the banks, unilaterally disarm or have Bush arrested and sent to the Hague for war crime prosecution, but really? How much further left does the left think Obama can go?
Second, where are these hard core Lefties going to “erode” their support too? Deep space? Hugo Chavez?
Third, you’d think that the hard left would like to keep the honeymoon period for the New Camelot admin going a bit past 200-something days. You make it sound like the True Believers are Blue Dogs ready to bolt into the arms of the Republicans or migrate to New Zealand. Ridiculous.
Fourth – from a realpolitik view (the one Rahm and Obama will naturally tend to favor) Obama owes the hard left nothing. The bill has been paid in full. He OWNS them, lock, stock and barrel.
Fourth, to even suggest that Obama should be more accommodating the fringe left at the expense of negotiating with the centers of power to drive some of that hope and change through Congress is simply a gesture of Emo self-harm by a far left in deep denial of their real position in the American political spectrum. Although, I suspect Rahm would say bring on the protests, kids. Could help Obama’s cred on mainstreet, America, which (Newsflash!) doesn’t really like extreme positions, Left or Right.
Those to the right of Cheney had nowhere to go but Bush either. Yet one could argue that the source of Bush’s major failures was his blinkered pandering to their extreme logic. Let’s hope that Obama doesn’t make the same mistake with the divisive left. Because if the hard left really gets everything it wants from Obama, he’ll be the first one term President since Carter.