The many roads of inquiry into the Bush administration's abusive "interrogation techniques" all lead to one stubborn, inconvenient fact: Torture is not just immoral but also illegal. This means that once we learn the whole truth, the law will oblige us to act on it.
So begins Pulitzer Prize Winner Eugene Robinson's op ed today, named - as is this diary - Where "Those Methods" Lead.
the law will oblige us to act on it - the simple, plain truth. One reason perhaps that a truth commission will be insufficient.
As is so often the case with Robinson, he has an ability to speak plainly, to remind us of what should be the obvious.
But that is only part of what he offers.
Robinson is in the Village but in a sense not part of it. Despite having been a senior editor at the Post, he is not caught up in the conventional thinking of Washington. Let me see if I can demonstrate this by a comparison with a real Villager, Chris Matthews. Last night I only listened to the very beginning of Hardball. The subject he was trying to explore is whether torture worked to obtain information - and in fairness I was already thinking, "who care?" Then I heard him say something like "If it works, then we wouldn't be having these discussion" as if the effectiveness in obtaining information might serve as a justification for violating something basic in human morality. I turned him off, immediately.
After his opening paragraph, Robinson first makes clear that torture is morally unacceptable, then after noting Eric Holder's straightforward statement rejecting waterboarding as torture, offers
This refreshing and admirable clarity stands in stark contrast to the fog of legalistic sophistry in which the Bush administration cloaked its secret prisons.
the fog of legalistic sophistry - another way of saying the Bushites were trying to baffle us with bullshit.
Robinson then explores those who would, having as did Dennis Blair said they would not have used such methods, simply want to move forward, not to prosecute those responsible. Robinson again is clear:
To state the obvious, this makes no sense at all. If Blair would not have sanctioned "those methods" -- some of which clearly meet the legal definition of torture, in my view -- then why would he give a pass to those who ordered the abuses and those who carried them out?
And again, a bit further on, Robinson puts things in the blunt fashion required:
Even if experts have differing views about torture's effectiveness, there is one point on which they cannot disagree: It violates U.S. and international law.
it violates U. S. and international law
Here let me explore a side thought. I have at times in my 6+ decades deliberately broken laws. Here I do not refer to the way we perhaps act somewhat casual about things like speed limits or, to be silly, removing labels from mattresses. Rather, I refer to the deliberate breaking of laws in order to change a law or a government policy I viewed as unjust. I did so in concert with others who felt similarly. Following examples as American as Thoreau and King and as internationally respected as Gandhi, in our breaking of the law we accepted the possibility of the consequences that would flow from our lawbreaking - we were prepared for arrest, jail, fines and the possibility of permanent criminal records. I did so primarily in support of advancing Civil Rights, although later occasionally in opposition to our efforts in Vietnam, both before and after I served in the Marines. As it happens I was, unlike others, never arrested.
I make this point because when one acts on behalf of the nation, one must always accept responsibility for one's actions when they cross legal boundaries. I believe this holds true even if offered advice that the actions could be construed as within the bounds of law, as seems to be the case with the now infamous memos. And it certainly must apply in those cases where even if something is illegal it is - or should be - patently offensive to human sensibility.
That does not mean that the power of clemency cannot extend to those put in difficult situations, but at a minimum it should require the application of the legal process to determine if the laws were in fact violated. One thing very offensive about the past administration was its unwillingness to be subject to judgment by anyone: it sought to permanently exempt itself and its minions from the sanctions of international agreement, and fought tooth and claw against Congressional oversight or accountability to the Courts. We might remember that one previous finalist for a Supreme Court nomination, Michael Luttig, was so offended by the games playing of the administration that he issued a scathing opinion and a court order that had it not been overturned by the Supreme Court perhaps could have brought the issue of treatment of those accused of terrorism to a much brighter light much more quickly.
Robinson warns us that any investigation is going to bring us to an uncomfortable position, which may be why some in the administration have argued against even these first steps of disclosure. He writes
Our system, left to its own devices, is not designed to let illegal acts be revealed and then ignored.
We have been down the road of revelation without prosecution. And we thereby established dangerous precedents. The actions of Richard Nixon while an occupant of the Oval Office were so egregious that he should have joined the many who served in that administration in being incarcerated. The many - Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, Magruder, . . . I feel comfortable saying that, even though he never stood trial because of the Ford pardon. Some of his crimes were violations of income tax law to which we are all subject. Others were gross abuses of power and of his office.
Nixon escaped. We became reluctant in the following decades to explore what Reagan and his administration had done. We never did fully find out all that was done. And now we have just completed an administration many of whose key figures had served either for Nixon or for Reagan. And for 8 years they were able to operate without meaningful accountability, they lied us into wars killing thousands and potentially destroying the economy of this nation, and in the process, the international financial system.
All of which pale, in my opinion, to this: they violated some of the most basic principles upon which this nation is based: habeas corpus, due process of law, limited government, checks and balances, separation of powers, right to trial by jury.
And even these pale next to this: the actions they were willing to countenance that which should never be acceptable, torture, the destruction of the human personality.
There must be accountability. Robinson notes this brings us to an uncomfortable place. I disagree when he says that
No one wants to see low-ranking CIA interrogators go down for doing what their superiors told them was legal, especially if the superiors are not held to account.
If we truly believe that the actors have a legal basis for what they did, why should that not be determined not by executive action but rather by a jury of their peers? And after all, if they were found guilty we would have established that one can not casually hide behind weasel words of lawyers seeking to justify the unjustifiable. And the President would still have the power to obliterated the convictions through use of his clemency powers. Such application would be far more justifiable than what Cheney sought on behalf of Scooter Libby, for example.
It perhaps would be unprecedented to pursue criminal charges against senior officials of the previous administration. Somewhat. After all, we have had several administrations in which senior officials were prosecuted. Albert Fall was a cabinet secretary who went to prison for Teapot Dome. And of course the many minions of Nixon who were imprisoned demonstrates that the idea of trial, conviction and imprisonment is not totally unknown.
Robinson concludes with what must be said:
It will be hard to stop this train, though. The rule of law is one of this nation's founding principles. It's not optional. Our laws against torture demand to be obeyed -- and demand to be enforced.
Unless we are willing to fully enforce the appropriate sanctions, we will not have sufficiently established the unacceptability of what has happened. That includes the distortion of the legal process, the untruthfulness to the American people and most of its elected representatives. It also includes the besmirching of our national reputation and image.
All of that is important. Again, all of that pales besides this simple truth:
People were tortured. At the official determination of the government of the United States. Some died. Some were permanently damaged, physically perhaps, emotionally and psychologically to be certain.
Some things are so clearly wrong that we MUST NOT look the other way, no matter how strongly some may seek to do so. They must not ever be justified, less we cease to be a nation of laws and not a domain dominated by the most recent impulses of those who may temporarily hold the reigns of power.
Absent accountability for these offenses, we the people will bear a permanent stain - that the nation for which we are sovereign has accepted actions that should never be accepted.
As a teacher, will I have to explain to my students that some are allowed to violate our social contract with impunity, but they are to be held to the strictest standard?
As a human being, will I still be able to be proud of this nation when we have descended to the level of dictators and brutes?
People were tortured. Forget the weasel words. Remember that fact. And remember that it was our government doing the torturing. That is a crime against humanity. We have executed people who did it to our troops. How can we not prosecute our own when they do it to others?
And without a full examination, a full accounting, if we thing we will be at peace morally, then have we become a nation without a conscience?