That the Bush Administration implemented a policy of torture, and that torture is illegal under U.S. law is a settled issue both here on D-Kos and in much of the media discussion. Whether or not those that designed and implemented the policy should suffer consequences from committing illegal acts is still open to debate, and unfortunately our President seems to be coming down on the side of letting high crimes slide without investigation, much less attaching consequences.
And that's just fine with Dick Cheney, since that means that the policy of torture stays in the presidential quiver. A future president -- or White House attorney -- can re-authorize torture and get that ball rolling again at any time.
It's not the high-minded intentions of Barack Obama that matters, here. It's what Dick Cheney is allowed to continue believing that defines the law of this land.
If our former Vice President and Chief Inquisitor is allowed to continue believing that, as Obama would not contradict in his speech Thursday,
'... after all is said and done Obama is still reserving to himself the right to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the future' ...
...well, then Dick Cheney is right. His policy of "enhanced interrogation techniques" remains within reach of any future president, CIA Director, whatever. If no one suffers consequences -- if none of the architects of this abomination incur so much as a few weeks' lawyers bills -- then the Dark Lord has won over Obama's good intentions, whatever the "we've got bigger issues on our plate" apologists may say. Torture remains a legal "policy" alternative.
What President Obama has done so far -- the executive directive banning EITs, moves to close Gitmo -- are simply public relations gestures without a decision by a high federal court against such tortures and subterfuges.
Go ahead, immunize George Bush and Dick Cheney
The Obama administration needs a narrative in which to package a proper Justice Department (AND Congressional) investigation and determination in Federal Court that the techniques of interrogation that Cheney, Addington, et. al., directed are, in fact, torture. And, that torture is illegal. This is an achievable goal. And that can be an important legacy that the election of 2008 leaves to future generations.
In order to get there, if we have to let Dick Cheney and George Bush off the hook -- hell, them and any Cabinet Members that may be found to be complicit -- then, I say, let it be so. The goal is more important than the satisfaction I and others here may feel by seeing Cheney cuffed and doing a "perp walk."
But, to get "torture is illegal" and to get the specific horrors dreamt up by the SERE contractors and directed by Cheney defined as illegal torture and set into law -- to finally put to rest Cheney's contention that to investigate and prosecute our laws against torture is simply "treating political disagreements as a punishable offense and political opponents as criminals" -- then someone has to be brought into Federal court and brought to account. It needs to be demonstrated that what is, and what is not torture isn't simply a "political disagreement."
The first thing we do, we go Shakespearian on the lawyers!*
The president needs a palatable story line to make the tough medicine of legal accountability go down. Let me suggest this: Obama and Attorney General Holder may decide that it's unseemly to hold elected, Constitutional office holders liable for what they "thought at the time were legal policy decisions." Absent direct evidence to the contrary, they may decide that any non-lawyer Cabinet member or staffer that was part of the conspiracy to violate laws against torture relied in good faith upon the advice of DOJ and DOD lawyers that what they were asking for and directing was legal. But that does not immunize the lawyers in Judge Jay Bybee's Office of Legal Counsel along with, say the Office of the Vice President's David Addington and White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, from conspiring to falsify established law and writing memos to provide "cover" for violations of the law in order to curry favor from powerful patrons.
Torture as a "policy decision"
As long as Cheney and his media spear carriers remain able to maintain that water boarding and the other extreme coercion methods authorized and directed by himself and others in his office are merely matters of degree of persuasion in normal, lawful interrogation then they are able to argue that the distinction between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration is a simple policy difference. (And, incidentally, they can continue to insinuate that Obama doesn't have the stomach or the steel for wartime command.)
For the first time since World War II we Americans have the popular will and the political opportunity to make the definition of torture more specific, and therefore less a matter of politicized interpretation, and to demonstrate that U.S. laws prohibiting torture can and will be enforced. We must act and do this now for all the familiar reasons -- to repair America's moral standing, to regain the power of leadership in spreading the rule of law to dangerous parts of the globe, et. al.; and we must do this now because to NOT ACT would mean that America will actually lose moral standing and will erode its leadership influence in the struggle against fanaticism and anti-democratic corruption around the world.)
We must force the issue of the illegality of torture, and we must not rest until someone -- anyone -- is brought to account for the crimes committed under the cover of John Yoo's torture memo.
Mr. President, don't let Dick Cheney have the last word.
- - - -
* King Henry VI - Part 2, Act 4. Scene II
Pick your own "politically palatable" co-conspirators from the handy list provided by this invaluable resource.