THE USE of torture authorized by President Bush left a stain on America's reputation, produced dubious intelligence, and may have played into the hands of Osama bin Laden and like-minded fanatics. President Obama began the hard but necessary work of undoing the damage when, on his first day in office, he issued executive orders ending torture and calling for task forces to evaluate policy on the detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects.
So begins the lead editorial in this morning's Boston Globe, entitled, as is this diary, Exorcising the torture demon. I think it is worth considering, and discussing, what the editorial advocates, hence this diary.
Put simply, the editorial is in general supportive of the proposal of Sen. Patrick Leahy, (D-VT), for a truth commission. After noting of the recent Red Cross report that
The repulsive details oblige Americans to confront - without euphemisms such as "alternative set of procedures" - violations of the Geneva Conventions and US law perpetrated in their name.
and reminding people of Leahy's proposal, the editorial continues like this:
There is a great need for such an inquiry - to show the rest of the world that the resort to torture was an aberration and to inoculate Americans against a repetition in the future.
It attempts to steer a middle road,"balanced" if you will, suggesting that it
will serve a useful purpose if it steers clear of partisan politics and avoids simplistic categories that define critics as soft on terrorism, and defenders as protectors of national security.
It offers a series of questions that, unfortunately to my mind, seem to want to reduce the examination to questions of whether the interrogation methods wasted time and resources, and then offers this unfortunate concluding paragraph:
The purpose of an inquiry should not be to criminally indict CIA officers or mid-level government officials; they were acting under authority granted them by a commander in chief. The purpose should be to demonstrate that American democracy is capable of correcting its worst errors.
Here I find myself objecting strongly. The commander-in-chief has no authority to grant permission to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity. He has no blank check either to violate the law himself or to authorize others to do so. If he finds it necessary, he has plenipotentiary power to offer pardons - to those under his authority and even to himself - but should do so openly and be willing to accept the political consequences that would flow therefrom.
As far as those following such directives - if in military uniform they are supposed to be instructed both in the Geneva conventions and their obligation to disobey an illegal order. A proper ethics program would require that ALL executive branch employees receive similar instruction. One would hope it would not be necessary, that people would recognize that they are already bound by oath or affirmation to uphold the Constitution, not the wishes of any President or other authority to the contrary.
Th Globe seem to want to remove the possibility of punishment from any consideration. I look at that last sentence, The purpose should be to demonstrate that American democracy is capable of correcting its worst errors, and have to ask myself if we can demonstrate that we have corrected the errors if there are no consequences? Do we have to rely on courageous judges in countries like Spain to point out how egregious the conduct was?
My wife has always been of the firm belief that Ford's pardon of Nixon started us down a long descent in which ever more egregious behavior by chief executives and their minions been allowed to go uncheck, because there have been no consequences.
Earlier this week I wrote about my frustration at seeing teenaged students suffer expulsion for admittedly inappropriate and often serious misbehavior while at the same time we see people who have mis-served this nation in important positions walk away from their misdeeds with impunity.
I understand that the Obama administration is confronted with many important issues, and would like to avoid getting bogged down. But there are some things of such importance that they require us to address them, and to remember that justice delayed is justice denied.
If the Republicans were so insistent that Bill Clinton be held to account for his personal misconduct, how then do we allow them to object that those in the immediate past administration who abused the powers of the government be held to answer for their official misdeeds? And unless consequences remain on the table, how meaningful is any investigation? Why should anyone take it serious? After all, we already know that there will be claims of ongoing executive privilege. Confront those, convict those resorting to such absurd claims in the court of public opinion.
Truth or consequences, as the old tv show used to proclaim. Better yet would be truth and consequences.
I offered the editorial as a possible starting point for a discussion.
What think you, dear readers, and why?