Bottom line: the current administration knows (and you know it, too) that it will not be able to move forward on any kind of torture prosecution without overwhelming support from the American people.
Is this community going to be able to provide that support? Are you going to be able to bring Republicans, Moderates and Independents on board?
Let's face it: after 9/11 many Americans didn't give a rat's butt if we tortured or not. Many were perfectly willing to look the other way. Much of the country was complicit in doing whatever was deemed necessary to get the bad guys. The prevailing environment pretty much gave the Bush administration carte blanche to invade a country. Let's not now pretend otherwise.
Doing something just because it's right has NEVER been the way this country has operated. NEVER. So spare me the moralizing. The only way anything ever gets done is when the government's hand is forced or there is overwhelming support for it. Examples include abolishing slavery, entering WWII and civil rights.
That's reality.
So if you want prosecution - you're going to have to force the administration's hand on this.
Is this issue RIGHT NOW more important than health care reform? Is it more important than education and entitlement reform? Because to engage in this torture prosecution fight right now may very well mean sacrificing those issues. That's reality.
This anecdote from FDR's administration is instructive. It comes from a 2002 address by William J. vanden Heuvel to the Monthly Meeting of The Century Association, and refers to events during the summer of 1940:
In one situation, a group came to him urging specific actions in support of a cause in which they deeply believed. He replied: I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it. He understood that a President does not rule by fiat and unilateral commands to a nation. He must build the political support that makes his decisions acceptable to our countrymen. He read the public opinion polls not to define who he was but to determine where the country was – and then to strategize how he could move the country to the objectives he thought had to be carried out.
President Obama already told you multiple times that he cannot repair this country by himself.
So - you think you have enough pull with the rest of America to prosecute? Go for it.
You want him to prosecute? Make him do it.
If not, stop moralizing and focus on what you can accomplish.
P.S. The other day I was listening to The Ed Schultz Show, and a woman from Chicago called to say that before President Obama announced his candidacy that she told everyone she could about him, and she was so happy when he was elected. But now, because of his current stance on the torture prosecutions, she's beside herself and just doesn't know what to do. "He's worse than Bush!" she declared.
Really?
I just don't want hyperbole and neurotism to frak up a good thing. Hence this diary entry. The title is my response to that particular caller's comments.
I'm not saying that it's impossible or unworthy to seek torture prosecutions. But I am concerned about how it will affect the political climate for other incredibly important issues. Liberals have waited a very long time for an advocate with real power (given not just by liberals); we've come out of the political wilderness. It's not an either/or argument: either we pursue torture or healthcare. But, if there are torture prosecutions for potentially dozens of Americans, that will be a distraction, and could at the very least delay progress on healthcare, education and entitlement reforms. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Other Considerations
Who, exactly, should be prosecuted? Everyone, or just those who committed the most egregious acts? Prosecute those who authorized torture, wrote the legal arguments supporting torture, or just those who carried out torture?
What is the state of our intelligence apparatus? If CIA/military operatives participating in torture are brought forward, what other intelligence work is affected? Does prosecuting some CIA/military operatives expose/endanger other field operatives?
Is the "law on his side" argument enough to prosecute those involved? Or did President Obama release the memos to gin up enough outrage to force his hand? So many questions!
Also, if I were President Obama and planned to prosecute torturers, I certainly wouldn't telegraph my intentions.