Obama v. Cheney on Torture
Veteran security reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren Strobel at McClatchy fact-check former vice president Dick Cheney's speech defending torture and denouncing plans to close Guantanamo Bay Landay and Strobel catch the vice president in a whole series of falsehoods:
The long and the short of it is that other high US officials doubt the allegation that torture was necessary to fighting al-Qaeda, or necessarily produced good information that could not have been obtained in any other way. McClatchy points out that Ibn al-Shaykh Libi's confession, produced by torture, actually helped drag the US into a fruitless war in Iraq insofar as he made false allegations that Saddam Hussein was training al-Qaeda in chemical weapons. The US military combed six million captured Baath documents and found the allegation false.
It could also be added that torture almost certainly deepened and lengthened the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq, which contrary to Cheney's claims was not mainly led by al-Qaeda.
President Obama's speech on the same subject, is here. It is an important speech, but problematic. It is framed as an attempt to defend the Constitution from Cheney's abuses, and as a balancing of transparency against national security. I'm not one of those he accuses of being a transparency fundamentalist. But I find him making too many concessions to the National Security State that are in my view unconstitutional. He maintains he is cutting back the abuses. But it isn't good enough that one president should identify where he things the US government went too far, and voluntarily cut back. Cutting back from three packs a day to only one could still kill you. And what happens if a different sort of president gets in in 2012 and ramps up the abuses again? By declining to draw a clear and adjudicable line, Obama is unwittingly allowing the Right to lay the groundwork for permanent move to presidential dictatorship. Obama says he doesn't want to re-litigate the last 8 years. That is frankly disingenuous. The last 8 years were never litigated. And crimes were committed. If they are not addressed, they will become norms, not crimes.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/22/2009 06:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
8 Comments:
I think Obama's stated intention to keep some detainees locked up forever, in spite of there being insufficient evidence to support a legal proceeding against them, is the most damning evidence that our new president might be an articulate version of the old one.
At another website featuring the Obama/Cheney "debate," many commenters, to their great credit, pointed out that both Obama and Cheney are arguing for unconstitutional and alrerady illegal acts to be made norms, so both are very wrong. Either Obama enforces the law regarding these capital crimes, or the law becomes essentially worthless--ALL LAWS. What good is the Bill of Rights if their protections are going to be ignored. And if Obama doesn't prosecute, then he becomes an accessory after the fact by obstructing justice. Pelosi started this mess by not doing her job by keeping impeachment off the table--another clear violation of the constitution.
Either Obama enforces the law, or we live in a lawless state with no viable constitution where anything goes, confirming the USA's status as a failed state.
Obama mustn't lower himself to dealing with Cheney. He is the President and Cheney is just a shitty has-been.
In addition, Cheney appeals to ignorance and ultra-nationalism. He doesn't use arguments, but forcibly state untruths. This works with the majority of Americans who are too simple and lazy to bother with arguments.
Obama needs to appoint an attack dog to beat Cheney with, using the same methods and appealing to the same audience.
"If they are not addressed, they will become norms, not crimes."
They have not been addressed, they are crimes, his is an accomplice.
Another bad thing is that Obama is doing exactly what Cheney said he would do, once he became president. He's proving Cheney was right - about the office of president.
Obama is surrounded by some poor advisors who are more interested in protecting turf than soil and blood. He's laying the groundwork for a national third party that will split the democratic vote and make the impossible inevitable - Republican minority dominance.
We need fair, free elections by 2010. No more money in politics - period.
I've long been a loyal reader of your blog and it is your considered wisdom that keeps bringing me back to your site. I mostly come to learn your interpretation of events in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
But I also find myself in agreement when you wander to other topics, such as this particular post. Your critique of Obama's speech is one of the best I have seen.
Like many others, I had much higher hopes for the Obama Presidency -- in areas like foreign policy and peace, democracy and human rights, health policy, reform of Wall Street, and environment. Sadly, and reluctantly, I am coming to the conclusion that Obama's actual policies (as opposed to his campaign promises and rethoric) leave much to be desired.
If nothing else, I would like to see a move in a direction that will make it much, much harder for a later Republican president to once again egnage in the kind of conduct witnessed under Bush/Cheney.
Keep up your good work!
Professor Cole:
Like most Americans, I have never known much about the Middle East. I think back to the first time I ever heard of you, which was when you testified opposite Richard Perle about the Iraq War. I watched as you were attacked and wondered if there might be some truth to the charges against you. Since Gaza and my growing alarm at the Islamophobia in this country, I finally did my homework on the Middle East and I see that you have been right from the start. I can't wait to read your latest book, hopefully before Obama shows up in Cairo.
Do we want terrorists in American prisons where they can recruit the most violent of our society?
Foolish question isn't it?
How long will it take new recruits after being freed from prison to do terrible acts on American soil?
How difficult will it be for terrorist to recruit when they can offer money to people with often few resources due thier own pasts as well as people who are prone to violence often anyway?
Post a Comment
<< Home