Updated: Obama Will Release Torture Memos; No Prosecutions
Update: Obama has just released a statement confirming that he will release the Bush torture memos. The whole thing is worth a read.
The statement is heavy on efforts to preempt attacks on his administration from the right. It contains the obligatory promise that we’re looking forward, not backwards. “This is a time for reflection, not retribution,” he writes, an effort to preempt, in advance, charges that he’s politicizing the process by dumping on his predecessor.
Indeed, he also confirms that “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.”
He also takes extra care to argue that this doesn’t signal knee-jerk opposition on his part to “classified activities” in the name of secrecy — also an effort to deflect, in advance, attacks from the right.
The statement concludes:
The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.
Some, however, will have trouble reconciling that statement with the decision not to prosecute anyone who implemented the program.
As for redactions, the statement suggests that the names of officers who partook in the programs will be concealed. Unclear yet if any more will be redacted; the strength of Obama’s rhetoric above suggests the answer is No.
********************************************
It’s hard to overstate the level of anticipation in some circles today, with the Obama administration set to reveal this afternoon whether they will release three key “torture memos” that could shed an unprecedented amount of light on Bush’s interrogation program.
Mark Mazzetti says the Obama administration, after a wrenching internal debate, has decided to release them, after all:
After a tense internal debate, the Obama administration this afternoon will make public a number of detailed memos describing the harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency against al Qaeda suspects in secret overseas prisons.
The interrogation methods were among the Bush administration’s most closely guarded secrets, and today’s release will be the most comprehensive public accounting to date of the interrogation program that some senior Obama administration officials have said used illegal torture.
The documents are expected to include Justice Department memos from 2002 and 2005 authorizing the C.I.A. to employ a number of aggressive techniques- including sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures and “waterboarding,” the near-drowning technique.
If true, the question remains how much info in these memos will be redacted. A Justice Department spokesperson I contacted refused to confirm this report and won’t say whether or not there will be any redactions in any memos that are released.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
President Obama could have kept that sh*tty statement. Quite honestly I lost some respect for him after reading it. He is going to find that if Democrats stop supporting him his approval numbers are going to tank. So while he keeps looking for Republican support that he is never going to find he is going to just about f*ck up any chance he has to get his agenda through and get reelected in 4 years. I am not feeling this. Lets see how many muthaf*ckas knock on doors for his a$$ next time if he keeps this sh*t up. Peace.
It’s not “retribution” we’re looking for, Mr. President. It’s accountability and transparency for any betrayal of the Constitution and our principles.
*sigh*
Well I guess I better skip this because I can see that this is going to be another one of those “Obama is just like Bush and I want my vote back” afternoons.
SMH
Nobody is every satisfied. We have a president committed to the rule of law and getting this country back in operation again but I knew that wouldn’t be enough. He’s closing Gitmo, ending the war, has released more information than any president EVER and he’s been in office for less than 3 months.
But it’s never enough.
I’m really tired of the constant discontent on the left. I’m getting ready to move to the middle if this keeps up.
I don’t really understand what you guys are really angry about here…the Obama admin is releasing the memos which I would take as a very transparent act. He also made a statement saying that this will never happen again on his watch. Yes it might be fulfilling in some way to witness the demise of those who carried out torture, but is it really fair to prosecute those that did by the very government that told them it was alright?
Plus, unless I missed something, it says that the DOJ will not prosecute those that were ordered to carry the torture out. As far as I can see, those that authorized it and devised the plan are still fair game.
From greenwald…
“I’ll have more details as soon as these memos are available. One can certainly criticize Obama for vowing that no CIA officials will be prosecuted if they followed DOJ memos (though that vow, notably, does not extend to Bush officials), but — assuming the reports about redactions are correct — there is no grounds for criticizing Obama here and substantial grounds for praising him.” Update follows:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/04/16/aclu/
I’d prefer to focus on the extremely positive step of releasing the memos, at least for now. The promise not to prosecute CIA officials is disappointing, but it is not a blanket amnesty for all. I think Greenwald has it mostly right.
Tena, I certainly don’t want my vote back, but I’m not crazy about having my position reduced to a strawman just to protect the White House’s flank. That said, I’m willing to be patient a little longer. If investigations, even some form of truth and reconciliation hearings with immunity, can still come out of this, I’m cool with that. It’s not scalps, even Yoo’s or Addington’s, that I want, but an admission that laws were broken. What’s the best way to prevent this from happening again? Shining the light on those who’ve committed these crimes. If they get to slink off, it can happen again.
This is a positive step in the right direction, granted I am a moderate, but I think this is a great development.
SG – If you were the one who’d released those memos and issued a statement, what would your statement have said?
Trevor J: Isn’t Obama releasing the memos, saying that he abides by the law, and saying that therefore this sort of thing will not happen in his administration an admission that laws were broken? Plus, the release of the memos are pretty good at “shining a light”on what happened.
check out what’s actually in the torture memos: it’s chilling…
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/torture-memo-details-insect-torture-the-insult-slap-forced-confinement/
g
Argoth, it helps. I’ll be honest, I don’t know what I want, I guess. Maybe I do want “retribution.” I want every American to hear about this. A chance to pitch a tomato at these cold monsters, maybe? Reading that stuff about the insects makes me sick. I don’t care how horrible or murderous the subject of this abuse is or was. This isn’t how we protect ourselves. It’s how we disappear.
ABC
.
If I had released the statement then I would have simply given my rationale for releasing them. I wouldn’t have said “this is a time for reflection not retribution”. What in the hell is justice exactly if not retribution? You can’t on the one hand say we are a nation of laws and on the other hand say “move along, nothing to see here”. Besides that he reaffirmed his committment to keeping other states secrets under wraps. When you read what he said and really think about it what he is saying is the primary reason he released the memos was because people already knew what was in them. Well what happens when the information isn’t leaked or if the people who write the memos haven’t copped to whats in them? Please remember something here, President Obama won’t be President for the rest of our lives. Whether you think he is the greatest thing since sliced bread its highly likely that at some point in our future we will have another President who isn’t and in my mind this creates a bad precedent. Besides that he railed against Bush’s repeated invocation of state’s secrets yet in the statement he released today he didn’t make even a passing reference to cutting back on the practice. Instead it seems as if he is saying he will do it as many times as he likes and if you don’t like it you can get bent. I was excited as anyone when word first came down that the memos would be released but his statement put a kibosh on any of that for me. Hell I sure hope there isn’t a memo out there discussing stuff we haven’t heard of yet because it is likely it will NEVER see the light of day.
Greg, I agree that these memos are chilling. What also strikes me is how carefully the techniques were designed to get into the captives’ heads. The intent appears to have been to break them down psychologically and not inflict serious physical harm. So maybe we should assume that someone in the CIA thought they’d found a technique short of Jack Bauer to get information from people they considered highly dangerous, and that they asked for and got “legal” cover.
.
This brings me to the first part of your post, SG. Obama said this was a time for reflection not retribution and you think that’s a mistake. But I’m wondering: is it possible he wants us to think hard about these acts themselves before we decide about punishment? What do we want our interrogators and lawyers and officials to be doing in situations like this? Where are the lines that can’t be crossed? Can we agree that psychological torture is as bad as physical? What kind of interrogations are effective and stay within the standards we want to uphold? Where does accountability lie when lines are crossed? Do we make allowances for things done in situations of extreme emergency? How much if any protection do we give the people we order to deal directly with suspects?
.
There are more questions like this to be asked and considered. Is this maybe a conversation we should all be having before we decide who should be punished?
ABC
.
Those questions have been asked and answered a long time ago when Reagan signed the Conventions Against Torture. In fact the whole reason why these memos even exist is because the Bush administration knew they were going against those conventions but wanted to provide legal cover. The law won’t change going forward on what torture is and what it isn’t so what will conversations do for us other than punt any investigations down the road until you hear everyone saying “Well too much time has passed now we should just leave it alone” Any prospect of investigations have a shelf life and President Obama just said blatantly AGAIN that he isn’t looking to investigate anyway. It is what it is.
SG, it’s tempting just to concede on all points. There’s certainly reason to, given the fact that the country has violated the Conventions Against Torture. But how does this play out? I suspect very few Americans, even if they know it exists, understand just how sweeping a document is. I’m also not sure there was that much of a conversation at the time it was signed and certainly not one that could take into account how many perceptions would change on the subject once all the fears of terrorism were ramped up. Let me stress that I don’t think those perceptions should have changed. But if our focus is on punishing people below the decision making level, it might become so divisive that we find ourselves incapable of re-establishing the bigger principle here: America doesn’t torture.