Today was nothing special. Just an ordinary day.
I woke up, went to work at the office. I typed. I copied. I mailed letters. I had lunch. I realized that I forgot to include the enclosure in one of the sent letters. I resent it. I got a cup of water. I typed and copied. I took a package to the post office. I scanned. I copied the scans. I typed. I went home and had dinner. I plopped in front of the computer and read DailyKos. Soon, I'll go to bed.
Just an ordinary day.
Except, that it isn't. Not quite.
You see, one year ago tonight, I was having anything but an ordinary day:
A lot can change in a year.
Eleven days before my surreal confrontation with a former U.S. Attorney General, we learned that the possibility of systematic torture of prisoners had been discussed all the way back in 2002 in secret meetings at the White House itself, attended by Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, George Tenet...and, yes, John Ashcroft:
Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.
The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.
"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."
(The Associated Press, April 11, 2008)
It should have been a bombshell. The actual result? Near silence.
Last year, we were told that only three prisoners, including Khalid Sheik Muhamed and Abu Zubaydah, were ever waterboarded, and only once or twice each. The right wingers were scornful: So they got a little wet, and then broke like sissy cowards. Big deal. They're terrorists, it was effective, and it was all regulated by the CIA guidelines anyway, so who cares?
But a lot can change in a year.
One year after the fracas, we know so much more. We know, for instance, that what we were told last year was a lie. The CIA didn't waterboard Muhamed and Zubaydah only once or twice. They didn't do it in accordance with any guidelines. They didn't get any additional information out of it.
They did it after Muhamed and Zubaydah had given up "a great deal" of information. They did it 266 times:
The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.
...
The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
(The New York Times, April 19, 2009)
Note the words "at least". The CIA lost count.
Today, we learned that those secret White House meetings about waterboarding in 2002 weren't simply a theoretical discussion or a laying of groundwork for the future. The first briefings on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" were held in May of 2002. The techniques were approved--and used--in July 2002.
That was the first use. As far as we know.
And not much changed in a year:
A year later, in July 2003, the CIA briefed Rice, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Attorney General Ashcroft, White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and National Security Council legal adviser John Bellinger on the use of waterboarding and other techniques, it states. They "reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy."
(The Washington Post, April 22, 2009)
July 2003 was five months after the Iraq War began. Re-affirmed.
The only thing we knew last year that still appears to be true? Regarding waterboarding, Ashcroft had doubts.
A fresh legal review by the Justice Department prompted Ashcroft to inform the CIA in writing on July 22, 2004, that its interrogation methods -- except waterboarding -- were legal. The following month, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel added that even waterboarding would be legal if it were carried out with a series of safeguards according to CIA plans. By the following May, the department had completed two more reviews of the program that came to the same conclusion.
(The Washington Post, April 22, 2009)
No wonder he was so touchy. A troubled conscience will do that.
Now, we still don't have the full story. We won't until there is a full and fair investigation, if there ever is. But what is truly amazing, to me, is that we know any of this.
So much has changed in a year. So much still needs to change.
One year ago, I was doing much the same thing that I am doing right now: posting a diary on DailyKos. That diary topped the rec list for days, was quoted and linked around the blogosphere, found its way onto "Countdown with Keith Olbermann," resulted in an inbox full of fan (and hate) mail...and it was a failure.
One year ago, we shouted from the rooftops that waterboarding was torture, illegal, and immoral, but only from our own rooftops. We preached, but only to the already converted. And then, distracted by primary season nonsense, we forgot.
There were no visible protests. There was no organized opposition. When and where it mattered, we said nothing. We let the matter drop.
This year, so much has changed.
We cannot say we have an election to focus on. We cannot say we don't know enough. And we cannot be silent in the face of sadism anymore.
I hope that Obama will do the right thing and not sweep the last seven years of ignominy under the rug. I hope that he will investigate and prosecute thoroughly the so-called public servants who allowed--no, encouraged--torture in our backyards. And I hope that he would do it on his own, without pressure from us.
But I won't count on it, because I have seen for myself how easily even the most moral and well-intentioned of us can be distracted by more "immediate" issues, like parsing the word "cling" or cracking jokes about Bosnia. And that's why, in spite of those who insist that we should give Obama a chance to handle (or not handle) the issue of torture his own way, I staunchly disagree.
Bring on the protests. Bring on the calls to Senators and Representatives. Bring on the letters to the editor. Bring on the petitions. Bring on the discussions with people less politically involved than we, and recruit them to the cause of human rights. Bring on the public outcry.
What we know now is only the tip of the iceberg. How much more will we know next year?
So much can change in a year. Let's start with hearts, minds, and policies.