Weekend Open Thread: Majority Wants Torture Probe
Updated below: White House reaffirms commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
* A new Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos asks the torture probe question in a way the big news orgs won’t:
Question: There have also been allegations that the Bush Administration engaged in torture in terror investigations. Which of the following would you favor the most a criminal investigation into those allegations or an investigation by an independent panel or neither?
Independent Panel 31
Criminal Investigation 22
Neither 22
Fifty-three percent want either an independent panel or a criminal probe. Barely more than one-fifth want neither. And as Joan McCarter points out, 52% of Independents want such action.
The key here is that this poll, unlike many sponsored by the big news orgs, used the word “torture,” and didn’t only focus on the narrow question of whether people want a criminal probe. And behold the results.
* Ben Smith notes that even if Britain did torture, contra Obama, the history still supports Obama’s case.
* Fox News’ Major Garrett, surprisingly, thinks Obama passed over Fox at the presser as retribution. Hmm….is an Obama snub good or bad if you’re Fox?
* Obama interrupted today’s press briefing to comment on the retirement of Justice David Souter. A transcript of his remarks is right here, and one thing seems immediately clear: Obama is moving to preempt the inevitable attacks on his choice as an “activist” judge by signaling, through his praise of Souter, that he values judges who have “no particular ideology” and don’t seek “to promote a political agenda.”
* Back in the day, Bill Kristol called for the 2006 and 2008 elections to be referendums on what sort of Supreme Court Americans wanted. Guess Kristol has his answer now…
* Glenn Thrush identifies the “supermajority paradox”: The closer Dems get to 60 votes, the weaker the Dem Senate leadership becomes.
* Unlike some other white men, Steve Benen isn’t terribly worried that his race and gender will go unrepresented on the Supreme Court.
* Conservatives gear up for the SCOTUS fight.
* Which prompts Brian Beutler to smartly note that one of the key organizers of that emerging conservative effort was the author of an infamous memo predicting that Terri Schiavo would be a great issue for the GOP.
* RedState thinks that Condi Rice won the torture exchange with the student.
* Worth recalling, though, that Rice did seem to imply that the terrorists are a greater threat than Nazi Germany was.
* Here’s today’s installment of the Michele Bachmann chronicles.
* And for now I won’t be posting on weekends, so please consider this an open thread. Back first thing Monday morning.
Update: The White House has reaffirmed its commitment to repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, restoring the following language to the White House Web Site:
He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Little by littele a majority are going to ask for accountability. Question: will pres Obama respond, and in what way.
White house site updated on DADT
.
http://www.americablog.com/2009/05/white-house-reiterates-its-commitment.html
.
RedState founder Erick Erickson called Justice Souter a goat effer on twitter and Crooks and Liars has the story but I can only post one link I will leave everyone to find it yourself.
.
Also if you get a chance check out Dan Froomkin’s takedown of Krauthammer today. It was excellent.
yeah, just heard they put the language back…
The following link is relevant to issues raised about media framing on the Friday “sanitizing torture” thread. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june04/interrogation_05-13.html
It’s a May 13, 2004 NewsHour interview Margaret Warner conducted with John Yoo and Scott Horton of the Int’l League for Human Rights. The subject is interrogation techniques and their legality, and the interview was conducted shortly after the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos became public. It’s is breathtaking both for its content and for the fact that Yoo, already at Berkeley’s law school, was the person presenting the administration side.
Re Froomkin’s point that the anti-torture position is the moderate, sensible, consensus one, here’s the question of the weekend:
If only 22 percent favor no probe of any kind into torture, as the above Research 2000 one did, why isn’t that considered the extreme, hard right position?
To be clear, there isn’t enough evidence to label it the hard right position. But pundits have labeled the pro-probe position the “hard left” one on the strength of far less evidence, or even no evidence at all.
I think we’re going there – I don’t see any way to avoid it now.
And since we’re here, then let’s see some prosecutions. It was always a travesty for the Bush Administration to blame the enlisted personnel. They always blamed someone else for everything they did or didn’t do – like 9-11 got blamed on the CIA and it wasn’t their fault, it was Bush/Cheney (I believe it was Bush/Cheney who blew up the World Trade Center, but that’s another story – )
This cannot stand – the guards who were prosecuted are madder than hell about this and while they were guilty alright, they weren’t responsible, ultimately. They were doing what they were told.
Greg
.
The problem is right wingers get on Tee Vee and repeatedly say “Most of the country doesn’t want an investigation” and they are never challenged on that point. There is plenty of polling now that shows the exact opposite is true but if nobody says that then what does it really matter? And thats why I again wonder if Dems in high places really want an investigation. They don’t use the tools at their disposal to effectively kill the right wing arguments against investigations for torture and I just have to start asking why that is.
If we want an investigation (which I do), how about having Patrick Fitzgerald do it? He has demonstrated his ability to be fair, accurate, thorough and effective.
If we want hearings about torture and the memos that enabled it, then let Congress have at it. The sordid details will come out, people will learn what was done, and why it matters to us as a people.
SG – I don’t know the answer to your question. You could say that by not taking on this right wing talking point about the country not wanting a torture investigation, high Dem officials are squelching the possibility of investigations. Maybe, though, with the polling indicating a desire for investigations, they think it’s smarter just to bypass the right wing talkers, not engage them in a way that let’s them define the terms of the argument more. Then they can move forward with prosecutions, investigations, commissions–whatever–in a more evolutionary, deliberate fashion. I mentioned on an earlier thread that Obama seems to be trying to calm the country after lots of years of trauma that felt something like a hostage situation. We’re all still jumpy. It looks smart for him to avoid sudden moves.
Greg
.
You might have already though of this but I just thought I would throw it out there. The unions now have a lot more leverage on Specter for EFCA. I still think that not enough other dems support voting for cloture, but if that changes who the union backs in a Democratic primary will make a HUGE difference, especially in PA. Thats something that Specter has probably not had to deal with recently if ever. Even if Rendell and Obama still support Specter in the primary, if the unions go for Sestak or another candidate it will probably keep them viable against Specter. And that goes double if Specter himself continues to vote like a Republican. So you might want to give the unions a call and ask them what they plan to do in a Dem primary should Specter vote against cloture. I bet Sestak would be HAPPY to accept their endorsement.
Dear AllButCertain,
But, in Article II of our Constitution (regarding the the Executive Branch, which is the president), it specifically states in Section 3 that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
Obama has already stated that waterboarding is torture. Torture is against American laws and against International treaties we have signed. In America, torturing someone is a crime.
How can Obama decline to enforce the laws of this nation when he has taken an Oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”?
I say Obama should be impeached if he refuses to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The same goes for the members of Congress, who have also sworn to uphold the Constitution: “Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”
ABC
.
I understand that from a WhiteHouse standpoint but I am talking about the Dem surrogates who go on all these shows like Hardball or Bill O’Reilly or AC360. They all seem to give only a token effort when the subject of torture investigations come up. They never mention the CAT and they never challenge when wingnuts claim that a majority in America don’t want investigations. Its like they want to be able to say that they gave it the old college try but it didn’t work. And lots of those surrogates have their strings pulled by Dems in Congress. When Johnathan Turley went on Hardball he had to fight Pat Buchannan AND Chris Matthews which you would think Matthews would be more in the investigation camp than not. But in that segment Matthews put for the wingnut talking points almost better than Pat Buchannan did. It just seems too much like kabuki theater to me.
A note about Abu Ghraib and torture. Recently after the Senate Armed Services Committee report came out which laid out how the Bush Administration authorized torture which eventually was exported to Abu Ghraib several Conservatives/Republicans were asked why the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were investigated and prosecuted for torture while CIA agents have been covered. The Republican talking point repeated several times was that these were “rogue” soldiers at Abu Ghraib while on the other hand these were skilled professionals handling the CIA interrogations who knew what they were doing. Well just as a reminder this was in the Newsweek story about Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who disputes much of what the Dick Cheney pro torture crowd has been saying about the efficacy of torture:
.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/output/print
.
.
Not only did the Bush Adminstration institute torture, they turned those torturing responsibilities over to contractors who had never EVER conducted an interrogation before. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib who ended up serving time should sue their monkey a$$es.
Raindrop – I guess I missed the part where I said the laws shouldn’t be faithfully executed. And if you’re thinking about impeaching Obama, it sort of makes my point that we’re all still a little edgy.
SG – I see your point on the commenters, though you’re way ahead of me if you can guess what is likely to come out of Chris Matthews’ mouth. I suppose it’s possible the Dems you’re referring to don’t even know where the polls stand on torture prosecution. If they did, regardless of their own positions, they could just say of course you’re wrong about where the polling is and then go onto what ever points they have to make, regardless of their positions. It’s not necessarily an intentional silence.
.
With regard to Abu Ghraib, all good points. Yoo, in that interview mentioned above, was all about the bad apples at Abu Ghraib, and distinguishing between what was done there and what was O.K. elsewhere, thanks to Geneva not being applicable (all that legal dancing on the head of pin). The more that’s revealed about all this, the uglier it gets. The Mitchell info is more than chilling. And the involvement of contractors in the first place is such an end run around laws and codes of ethics. It’s one of the most disturbing pieces.
“you’re thinking about impeaching Obama, it sort of makes my point that we’re all still a little edgy.”
There’s a good op-ed in the NYT today on this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/03iht-letter04web.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
“Few Americans better understand the precarious stakes of looking into what role torture played in the “war on terror” than Mr. Mora, a once-staunch political conservative whom President George W. Bush appointed as general counsel of the U.S. Navy in 2001. Mr. Mora was horrified at the legal justifications for the “enhanced interrogation” techniques like waterboarding. After he left, he became an outspoken critic.
He argues passionately and persuasively that the Bush-Cheney practices broke international law, hurt the United States’ standing in the world and fundamentally violated American values.
Mr. Mora, a Republican, has no desire to see former Vice President Dick Cheney or the authors of the secret legal opinions tried for war crimes.
That would tear the country apart and set a dreadful precedent.”
This piece sets out very well where I think the country is right now.
From the oped
.
Nothing will be possible, though, without first arriving at the truth.
.
I absolutely agree.
Tena, thanks for that link. Al Hunt does a pretty good job of articulating the conundrum facing the country, and the need for the truth. The people he suggests as potential commission members–9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group types–are probably good candidates, but I hope if there is a commission that it also includes some religious leaders, maybe even someone like Rick Warren. I think there has to be a way for the religious right to look at torture as a moral issue. If they’re broadening their portfolio to consider things like environmental responsibility, why not this too? The bigger the anti-torture consensus we can achieve, the better.
Dear AllButCertain,
You wrote that “It looks smart for him [Obama] to avoid sudden moves.”
But Obama DID make a too sudden move.
Here is Obama’s first statement when he released the torture memos: “In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. …nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.”
As a supposed teacher of Constitutional law, Obama should have known better than to make that statement.
First of all, deciding against the investigation and/or prosecution of crimes is NOT a determination for the president to make. Obama later acknowledged that fact.
Second, it is Obama’s Constitutional responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
When Obama made that first statement about not prosecuting those who tortured and thereby committed a crime, he was wrong and he sounded uninformed about his Constitutional role as president.
Well played sir, well played!
.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/not_so_fast_arlen.php
Raindrop, there’s been a lot of discussion on threads on this blog about what Obama said in his statement at the time the torture memos were released. Maybe you’ve been following the various takes and points of view. Many are quite interesting and thoughtful.
Story on Specter in the Philadelphia Inquirer
.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/44239847.html?page=1&c=y
“When Obama made that first statement about not prosecuting those who tortured and thereby committed a crime, he was wrong and he sounded uninformed about his Constitutional role as president.”
What constitutional duty are you talking about? He has no constitutional duty to prosecute anyone -read the constitution. The president has no authority to do this – it’s up to the AG and Congress.
Tena,
I never said the president has a “constitutional duty to prosecute anyone.” What I wrote was: “deciding against the investigation and/or prosecution of crimes is NOT a determination for the president to make. Obama later acknowledged that fact.”
The president has a Constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
It’s written in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. Here’s a link to the Constitution: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
It would be wonderful if more Americans would bookmark it and read it from time to time.
The United States signed this.
——————————————————————–
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Adopted by [the UN] General Assembly resolution 3452 (***) of 9 December 1975
Article 1- 8
Article 9
Wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture as defined in article 1 has been committed, the competent authorities of the State concerned shall promptly proceed to an impartial investigation even if there has been no formal complaint.
Article 10
If an investigation under article 8 or article 9 establishes that an act of torture as defined in article 1 appears to have been committed, criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the alleged offender or offenders in accordance with national law. If an allegation of other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is considered to be well founded, the alleged offender or offenders shall be subject to criminal, disciplinary or other appropriate proceedings.
Article 11-12
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/UN-torture/
Hey i just wanted to say hi to everyone.