Release of CIA torture memos was correct; prosecution isn’t
After some internal wrangling, the Obama administration finally decided to release the “CIA torture memos” used by top Bush officials to vainly try to legitimize actions that were clearly illegal and immoral.
But even as it released the documents, the administration stressed that it would not prosecute the lower-level CIA agents who had carried out the torture.
“Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing,” wrote Dennis Blair, the recently appointed director of national intelligence. “But we will absolutely defend those who relied on these memos.”
Both the memo release and refusal to prosecute were necessary and appropriate. The American people need to know what had been done in their name, and frankly what they had permitted to be done in their name. While the specifics of the memos — and the amorality and tortured logic they reveal — may be new to us, the fact that torture occurred was not a surprise at all.
We knew, and we allowed it to continue.
For that reason, prosecuting those who carried out torture would compound the already considerable hypocrisy evident in this shameful situation. For example, I can’t help but remember the apologetic expressions of horror issued in the wake of Abu Ghraib by such fine people as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , even as he knew that far worse treatment was being sanctioned in secret.
President Obama is wrong, however, to oppose an inquiry into what happened. He may believe that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” and as president that may even be a politically appropriate stance to take. But in the wake of World War II, we prosecuted and punished captured Japanese for waterboarding and other acts of torture identical to those approved at the highest level of the U.S. government.
To now turn our backs and look no further into our own behavior would be an act of moral weakness. We are a better country than depicted in those memos, and the best way to demonstrate that would be to fully acknowledge our mistakes.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
210 comments Add your comment
Bud Wiser
April 17th, 2009
7:58 am
No, Obama’s SS will soon be ferreting out the “right wing extremists” per orders from Bat Face.
Kinda gives one a warm fuzzy knowing they bought their guns and ammunition at a gun show, doesn’t it?
PJ
April 17th, 2009
8:04 am
Thank you Jay for reporting this item. I agree that prosecution of those who authorized this is not only necessary but just. As far as those in the CIA who preformed the torture, I don’t put them on the same level as those troops in Iraq. These are seasoned intelligent veterans who if they didn’t know better had no business being in their positions. What will come out of this as far as punishment is yet to be known but I think the President wants to put this behind him and the country because of the whinners, complainers and those that no matter what feel the Bush Administration was right. I am sure we will hear from many of them today on this blog.
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
8:04 am
Yeah Bud Wiser,
Obama’s SS? Is that similar to the former adminitration’s use of the NSA to illegally wiretap law abiding U.S. cititens and members of Congress?
Susan Myers
April 17th, 2009
8:06 am
What I found remarkable in Keith Olbermann’s special comment last night is the lack of both hindsight and foresight where President Obama is concerned. Like a master chess player the president he sees moves ahead of the current situation.
If he were to now move ahead with a plan of retribution the country would be even more polarized and the important work before Congress stalled. Remember how nothing got done during the Lewinsky nonsense. While I lost all respect for Clinton, I was appalled at Congress’s willingness to abdicate its reponsibilities to focus on zippergate.
As these torture memos are released, analyzed and discussed, it focuses attention on an imperial administration that did what it wanted and justified any action to give itself permission.
Just like South Africa’s truth commission, I think in the coming months and years the “trials” of the Bush administration will be carried out in full view of the public, if not the courts.
Copyleft
April 17th, 2009
8:09 am
The fact that Americans were sincerely debating HOW MUCH TORTURE was “appropriate” shows how far we had fallen during the Bush years.
America is better than this. At least, it used to be. And hopefully, with Obama in charge and the neocons’ dreams shattered, it will be again.
Joey
April 17th, 2009
8:14 am
Not to worry Jay. When the Obama Administration sees the need to push another news story into the background, or to pump up this element of his supporters; they will announce reopening the inquiry. If it is needed they may even talk about indictment.
Honestly, why do you pretend that you are unaware of these methods; that you are not a part of the machine.
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
8:20 am
“We do not torture,” Mr Bush told reporters during a visit to Panama – November 7, 2005
Is it possible that the Bush admin misrepresented the truth? Egad!
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
8:28 am
Jay:
1) Would you please publish the list of “tortures” that our U.S. Navy SEALs go through for weeks on end as part of their training. Some of it is pretty graphic. I hope their “trainers” are not prosecuted either.
As I have stated many times, we can resolve all of this by putting terrorist prisoners through SEAL “hell week” until they spill their guts.
2) There are two basic reasons no one is being prosecuted over “interrogations” of terrorist combatants.
a) A conviction would be almost impossible and if gained overturned on appeal.
b) Obama does not want to set a precedent for similar prosecutions regarding his administration (he is apparently responsible for some illegal wiretaps on his watch the past few months).
Mrs. Godzilla
April 17th, 2009
8:29 am
We are going to protect CIA operatives? Why didn’t we protect Lindy?
What’s the difference?
Yoo, Addington, Cheney, Gonzales, Feith, Bybee…..These men must be brought to justice.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 17th, 2009
8:34 am
I came across this quote recently, it speaks volumes….
oh, and the author is not “unknown”
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man`s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
J.K. Galbraith
Taxpayer
April 17th, 2009
8:35 am
We have not seen much of “handshake” Rumsfeld in the limelight these days. I’m surprised that he and Dick and George are not all in the news on a daily basis telling us all how unsafe the world is without their torture devices in full swing.
DB, Gwinnettian
April 17th, 2009
8:36 am
Yeah, Jay, first person I thought of when Obama issued that statement was Lyndie England, the torture poster girl.
We can’t allow this nation to make that mistake again. Go after the damn organ grinders, not their monkeys.
Taxpayer
April 17th, 2009
8:40 am
A Bush administration memo from 2005, intended to establish a legal basis for aggressive interrogation techniques, contains a footnote that actually describes waterboarding as falling within the administration’s definition of torture.
The footnote, found within one of the Office of Legal Council memos released by the Obama administration on Thursday, suggests that officials in the previous White House likely knew that they were torturing terrorism suspects at a time when they claimed to not be involved in such a practice.
Bush officials also acknowledged in a different footnote that for a period of time, waterboarding was “used with far greater frequency” and “intensity” than advised, so much so that medical personnel could not confirm the safety of the detainees. Authors of the memo said they instructed interrogators to change their use of the technique to make it more similar to its practice in Marine Corps training.
I think trials for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would be a waste of taxpayer’s dollars. After all, the GOP has left us with so few dollars to work with. So, I suggest that we let the Iraqis, perhaps, have them. And, if they do not want them, perhaps a few other countries would step up and help us out.
PJ
April 17th, 2009
8:41 am
Susan Myers @8:06 am – I also agree with KO’s assessment last night. He is an admirer of Obama but that did not stop him from criticizing the non-prosecution of those involved. That’s the difference between him and some other conservative commentators, he will not carry the water no matter what the President does.
I remember during the height of the war in Iraq that when extremist paraded beaten and tortured captives on TV how sick it made me feel. At that time we did not know we weren’t much better. Doing it in secret does not make you the better people. Also theirs was being carried out by fringe terrorist groups, Bush did this in the name of America. I don’t know about any of you but I don’t feel safer, I feel violated and I am afraid for any American traveling or servicing overseas who is kidnapped and tortured with this being used as an excuse to do so.
Dictatortot
April 17th, 2009
8:42 am
Bush tortured people. His supporters torture logic and morality.
ty webb
April 17th, 2009
8:42 am
Talk about “faux outrage”. nice try Jay.
Mrs. Godzilla
April 17th, 2009
8:42 am
Can we had an * to Bush’s record?
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
8:42 am
Corporal,
Does this sound about right for BUD/S training?
“The fourth week of Basic Conditioning is known as Hell Week. This is when students train for five days and five nights solid with a maximum total of four hours of sleep. Hell Week begins at sundown on Sunday and ends at the end of Friday. During this time, trainees face continuous training evolutions. During Hell Week, trainees get four meals a day — sometimes MREs, but usually hot meals of unlimited quantities. Eating hot food is a substitute for being warm and dry. It gives a needed psychological boost to tired trainees, many of whom are nearly sleeping while they eat.
Pretty much every evolution during Hell Week involves the team (or boat crew) carrying their boat — inflatable rubber Zodiacs — over their heads. Timed exercises, runs, and crawling through mud flats are interspersed throughout the five-and-a-half days. The largest number of trainees drops out during Hell Week. This extreme training is critical, though. SEALs on missions must be able to operate efficiently, oblivious to sub-zero temperatures and their own physical comfort. Their lives, as well as the lives of others, may depend on it.
Listening closely to orders is another critical element of training during BUD/S, particularly during Hell Week when brains are getting fuzzy from lack of sleep. The instructor may purposely leave out part of an order to see who is really listening. For example, during a series of orders requiring trainee teams to do exercises using a 300-pound (136-kg) log, he may leave out mention of the log for one order. Team leaders who are paying attention will catch this, and their team gets a small break in the difficulty of the task by performing it without having to carry the log. The instructor might reward the team by allowing it to stand by the fire and rest, or sit and sleep for a few minutes.”
Class of '98
April 17th, 2009
8:46 am
Hypothetical question Jay… if causing extreme pain on an individual saves 100, or 200,000, or a million lives, is it still immoral?
Mrs. Godzilla
April 17th, 2009
8:48 am
Class of 98
Yep.
You either got or you haven’t got principles.
The end does not jusitfy the means.
Got Machiavelli?
N.J,
April 17th, 2009
8:49 am
A crime is a crime is a crime. America was the country that established the international law at the Nuremberg Trials that “I was just following orders” is not an adequate defense for torture.
The Nazis did not break a SINGLE law of their own nation when they started opening up concentration camps and executing millions of men women and children. Everything they did was 100 percent LEGAL within their own borders. They simply made every action they took legal by changing their laws to fit the crimes.
Nuremberg extablished the principals that there are laws that should never be legislated and passed, and the fact that these laws have made those actions legal is not acceptable.
The same thing applies in many other areas. Most of the economic actions that caused the current recession were ILLEGAL before 1980 and the last 30 years of basically conservative political rule in the U.S. gradually turned actions that would have been considered crimes, not just civil offenses, were made legal. An entirely new class of economic crime was created after 1979. Legitimate crimes.
The same thing occured with regard to torture. After 9/11 it became legitimate to torture someone in order to determine if that person was innocent or guilty. Which was exactly what was happening at Guantanamo and the various CIA locations outside of the United States.
For those sort of actions, no one should ever be allowed to not be prosecuted. That is a slippery slope that no American should tolerate anymore than “I vas yust vollowing orders” should have been accepted after WWII.
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
8:49 am
Class of ‘98,
If causing extreme pain on an individual saves 100, or 200,000, or a million lives, but creates an atmosphere of hate that helps recruits others who detroy 3 million lives, is it still immoral?
Corporal Punishment
April 17th, 2009
8:53 am
Corporal,
Thank you for you omniscience. Sounds like Seal’s hell week was similar to that of my fraternity. But there was probably less booze and the seals. like you, are much tougher.
N.J,
April 17th, 2009
8:54 am
Corporal, The difference between a Navy Seal’s and prisoners of the CIA is that the Seal agrees to be tortured.
By their own personal choice, they agree to enter the program and submit to the training. This is not at all different than a person who agrees to submit to experimental medical treatment, and prisoners in concentrations camps who are forced into those procedures.
What YOUR should be providing is a list of NAVY SEALS who were forced into the training against their will.
Taxpayer
April 17th, 2009
8:54 am
Was it immoral for the Bush administration to just plain outright lie to the American people in order to gain our support for his actions. Why, yes. Yes, it was.
ty webb
April 17th, 2009
8:57 am
NJ,
I don’t think it was conservative political rule that caused thousands of people to spend beyond their means. That was a major cause of this current economic crisis. You post just shows your partisanship, but hey, that’s pretty much par for the course around here.
Taxpayer
April 17th, 2009
8:57 am
N.J.,
It sounds like the Bush administration learned a lot from the Nuremburg trials.
Copyleft
April 17th, 2009
8:58 am
I’m not clear on why the officials involved shouldn’t be prosecuted.
Were they “just following orders”? Does that make it okay? Seems to me I’ve heard that argument before….
Copyleft
April 17th, 2009
8:59 am
For Class of ‘98: “if causing extreme pain on an individual saves 100, or 200,000, or a million lives, is it still immoral?”
Yes. Why wouldn’t it be?
ty webb
April 17th, 2009
9:04 am
I’ll give you guys the whole immoral arguement. That is subjective. What is immoral to some might not be to others, i.e homosexualality,abortion, gambling, drinking. I personally don’t feel that is these memos show our immorality, and certainly not illegal. What law has been broken here.
lwwmm7
April 17th, 2009
9:05 am
Free the Chicago Seven! Up the revolution! Down with the establishment! I just wanna be free! War is unhealthy for children and other living things! Oh wait, I was just having one of those flashbacks they warned me about.
Kamchak
April 17th, 2009
9:08 am
The ticking time-bomb card–quick–someone play the ticking time-bomb card.
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:09 am
Jewcowboy:
Nope. That’s just what they put in writing like the “pretty” brochures the recruiter showed me before I went to USMC bootcamp. Nothing could have been farther from the truth ……… you should try it sometime.
N.J.:
I don’t care if they didn’t volunteer? Are you crazy? They’re terrorists! And it’s not “torture” if SEAL trainers aren’t being prosecuted.
To All:
I wonder just how many American lives were/are being saved because someone had some guts?
Oh, perfidious nation!
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
9:10 am
ty webb,
Pehaps its because we ratified the Geneva Conventions and are bound to it by International Law.
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:12 am
Let’s dig up Truman and prosecute him for war crimes ………..
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
9:13 am
Corporal,
Or how many lives have been taken because we broke from the ideals that set this country apart from some of the worst despots in the world.
ty webb
April 17th, 2009
9:13 am
Jewcowboy,
I’m not so sure that those this alleged torture was inflicted on are entitled to Geneva protections.
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:15 am
jewcowboy:
Then per the Geneva Convention, every terrorist enemy combatant caught on the battlefield out of uniform should have been shot by firing squad as Eisenhower did German troops during the Battle of the Bulge. Is that o.k. with you?
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:17 am
jewcowboy:
It all boils down to the definition of “torture”.
I was taught to stick a bayonet in someone and then twist it before pulling it out to cause more damage. War is hell.
lwwmm7
April 17th, 2009
9:18 am
There has never been, and until human nature itself changes, will never be any extended period of peace on earth and good will to men. Since Cain slew Abel, we have been fighting and killing and will continue to do so. The Utopians of the 18th century had a good idea, but it failed for one reason– people. We will still be having these discussions 100 years from now, oh wait, I was the History Channel show about the world ending on 12-21-2012. Never mind. Have a good day out in the sunshine everybody.
Paul
April 17th, 2009
9:18 am
Jay,
“Necessary and appropriate.” Strikes a reasonable balance, although I found it noteworthy the CIA Director (Pres Obama appointee) advised against release of the memos.
As far a ‘clearly illegal’: people will continue going round and round with general statements about the actions and ‘torture.’ I think it important to distinguish between a legal opinion (which the Dept of Justice provided) and an advocacy of a policy position. A legal opinion is just that – an opinion. Asking a lawyer ‘can I do this’ or ‘is it legal’ and getting a response is not the same as a lawyer telling one what to do or telling what one should do. One can ask a lawyer ‘is it legal to divorce my spouse in these circumstances’ or ‘can I pay a bonus to this employee’ and getting a response of ‘yes’ does not mean the lawyer is telling you to divorce your spouse or pay a bonus, or even that you should. It’s just an opinion of legality.
You cited US Code Title 18 some time back. Reading that, and the opinions, shows the opinions had a legal basis. Whether or not one accepts that, especially as a matter of policy, is another matter. Other lawyers have given other opinions. It’s no different here than in other arenas.
It’s also never been sufficiently litigated. I wonder if it’s of the same order as what we used to see in the gun control debate: both sides argued their cases in the public forum, said the other side was wrong, then dropped all action before it ever got to the Supreme Court. The risk of an unfavorable decision for either side was too great.
Note, too, that in his confirmation hearings Director Panetta’s comments were “the latest indication that the Obama administration may restore some of the CIA’s authority to use interrogation techniques that go beyond those allowed for the U.S. military.” Add in the fact the Obama Administration has retained many of the Bush Administration practices.
Now add in the fact that yesterday Spanish prosecutors told a Spanish court to drop its investigation of six former Bush Administration officials and we see how the issue is not a simple case of ‘black/white right/wrong.’ I think it clear the Obama Administration wants some degree of latitude in future ‘worst case’ scenarios.
And I predict the Obama Administration will continue or expand certain practices which were condemned during the Bush Administration, furthering consternation among Bush detractors/Obama supporters.
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
9:20 am
Ty,
According to the U.S. Supreme Court they are entitled to treatment under the Geneva Coventions(Hamdan v. Rumsfeld).
lwwmm7
April 17th, 2009
9:21 am
I was not was the History Channel, I saw it. It was on TV so it must be true.
jasper
April 17th, 2009
9:21 am
How about just submersing them in a caustic saline solution, like we do second trimester fetuses. I guess that would be okay as long as the screams were silent.
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:23 am
Paul:
I am afraid your reasoned, balanced approach will fall on deaf, hysterical, biased ears.
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:24 am
Jasper:
Excellent point but it will also fall on hearts cruely hardened to the plight of the unborn.
Ray
April 17th, 2009
9:25 am
From the sound of most of the liberal posts, these prisoners were nearly killed, or at worse maimed. Torture similar to the Japanese during WWII, the same torture as the Jews went through in the Holocaust…. I think that you libs are getting carried away with your rhetoric. Can any of you specifically list the acts that you are concerned about except for waterboarding and sleep deprivation that you disagree with and provide a link to prove it?
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:25 am
jewcowboy:
Did you answer my 9:15?
Corporal
April 17th, 2009
9:27 am
VERY INTERESTING:
The Atlanta Channel 11 website refers to it as “Rough Tactics”. Sounds good to me …………..
“Obama Won’t Charge CIA Officers for Rough Tactics …”
jewcowboy
April 17th, 2009
9:27 am
Corporal,
Listening to Britney Spears is torture to me, but I think generally it’s accepted as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him.