Wednesday
Apr222009
Video and Analysis of Obama Torture Statement: Let's Blame the Lawyers?
Wednesday, April 22, 2009 at 9:04
The politics of torture rumbles on. Facing criticism over the release of the four memoranda documenting the Bush Administration's authorisation of "enhanced interrogation" (from Bush defenders: releasing the memos jeopardises national security and/or torture worked; from Bush critics: OK, so who is going to be prosecuted for this?), President Obama manoeuvred through a short statement yesterday in response to a reporter's question (the exchange begins at 4:26 --- transcript below):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBIcjXrfEKQ[/youtube]
Obama began with the rhetoric that "there are still enemies out there" being fought by "courageous people" who have to make "difficult decisions" but the memoranda showed we were "losing our moral bearings". Then his deliberate answer got interesting:
The President immediately returned to the theme of let's move on: "As a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations." Still he had opened up the question:
Are the Bush Administration's lawyers going to take the criminal fall for the torture authorised by their President and his senior advisors?
Reviewing the video, I think Obama, with his dedication to reassuring intelligence and security personnel that he "has their back" and his decision not to challenge the Bushmen who ordered torture, inadvertently held open the door of prosecution for a few lawyers. He may well close that door quickly.
Let's state the bluntly obvious, however. These lawyers --- John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, Stephen Bradbury --- were merely carrying out a job handed to them by policymakers, notably the officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The task was not "Are these proposed interrogations legal?" but "Give us a finding which says these interrogations are legal." No doubt some of the lawyers eagerly took on the job --- John Yoo, in particular, saw the sanctioning of torture as part of a legitimate exercise in Executive power --- but, without the direction from above, their memoranda and guidances do not get written.
Presidents and their right-hand men --- unless they are overthrown in coups or toppled by wars --- don't wind up in jail. Their lawyers, however, are expendable.
If you don't think so, ask a man named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Remember? Out of all the Bush Administration folks who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to tarnish her and thus defend their "legitimate" intelligence on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, he's the only one who wound up in jail.
TRANSCRIPT
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) to ask you about the interrogation memos (OFF-MIKE) you were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who -- who carried out the instructions under this legal guidance.
OBAMA: Right.
QUESTION: Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then, quickly, on the second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether a special -- special commission or something of that nature (OFF-MIKE) to go back and really look at the issue?
OBAMA: Well, the -- look, as I said before, this -- this has been a difficult chapter in our history and one of the tougher decisions that I’ve had to make as president.
On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there, and we rely on some very courageous people not just in our military, but also in the Central Intelligence Agency to help protect the American people, and they have to make some very difficult decisions, because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn’t have scruples, that isn’t constrained by constitutions, aren’t constrained by legal niceties.
Having said that, the -- the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.
For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.
With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the perimeters of various laws, and -- and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there. As a general view, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.
And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.
I’m not suggesting that, you know, that should be done, but I’m saying, if you’ve got a choice, I think it’s very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage, but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.
And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at -- at the CIA when I visited, you know, what makes America special, in my view, is not just our wealth, and the dynamism of our economy, and our extraordinary history and diversity. It’s -- it’s that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they’re hard.
And sometimes we make mistakes, because that’s the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and -- and keep our eye on those -- those ideals and -- and values that have been passed on generation to generation.
And -- and that is -- is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And -- and I’m confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, live up to our values and ideals.
And that’s not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe, and I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.
I’ve got a lot of other things on my plate. I’ve got a big banking crisis, and I’ve got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we’ve got an auto industry that needs work.
There are a whole things -- range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.
So I -- I do not take these things lightly, and I’m not in any way under -- under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people. So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.
All right? Thank you, everybody.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBIcjXrfEKQ[/youtube]
Obama began with the rhetoric that "there are still enemies out there" being fought by "courageous people" who have to make "difficult decisions" but the memoranda showed we were "losing our moral bearings". Then his deliberate answer got interesting:
For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate that they be prosecuted. With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more a decision for the attorney general within the parameter of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that.
The President immediately returned to the theme of let's move on: "As a general deal, I think we should be looking forward and not backward. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations." Still he had opened up the question:
Are the Bush Administration's lawyers going to take the criminal fall for the torture authorised by their President and his senior advisors?
Reviewing the video, I think Obama, with his dedication to reassuring intelligence and security personnel that he "has their back" and his decision not to challenge the Bushmen who ordered torture, inadvertently held open the door of prosecution for a few lawyers. He may well close that door quickly.
Let's state the bluntly obvious, however. These lawyers --- John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, Stephen Bradbury --- were merely carrying out a job handed to them by policymakers, notably the officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office. The task was not "Are these proposed interrogations legal?" but "Give us a finding which says these interrogations are legal." No doubt some of the lawyers eagerly took on the job --- John Yoo, in particular, saw the sanctioning of torture as part of a legitimate exercise in Executive power --- but, without the direction from above, their memoranda and guidances do not get written.
Presidents and their right-hand men --- unless they are overthrown in coups or toppled by wars --- don't wind up in jail. Their lawyers, however, are expendable.
If you don't think so, ask a man named Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Remember? Out of all the Bush Administration folks who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to tarnish her and thus defend their "legitimate" intelligence on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, he's the only one who wound up in jail.
TRANSCRIPT
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) to ask you about the interrogation memos (OFF-MIKE) you were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who -- who carried out the instructions under this legal guidance.
OBAMA: Right.
QUESTION: Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then, quickly, on the second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether a special -- special commission or something of that nature (OFF-MIKE) to go back and really look at the issue?
OBAMA: Well, the -- look, as I said before, this -- this has been a difficult chapter in our history and one of the tougher decisions that I’ve had to make as president.
On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there, and we rely on some very courageous people not just in our military, but also in the Central Intelligence Agency to help protect the American people, and they have to make some very difficult decisions, because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn’t have scruples, that isn’t constrained by constitutions, aren’t constrained by legal niceties.
Having said that, the -- the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That’s why I’ve discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.
For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.
With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the perimeters of various laws, and -- and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there. As a general view, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.
And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.
I’m not suggesting that, you know, that should be done, but I’m saying, if you’ve got a choice, I think it’s very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage, but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.
And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at -- at the CIA when I visited, you know, what makes America special, in my view, is not just our wealth, and the dynamism of our economy, and our extraordinary history and diversity. It’s -- it’s that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they’re hard.
And sometimes we make mistakes, because that’s the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and -- and keep our eye on those -- those ideals and -- and values that have been passed on generation to generation.
And -- and that is -- is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And -- and I’m confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, live up to our values and ideals.
And that’s not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe, and I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.
I’ve got a lot of other things on my plate. I’ve got a big banking crisis, and I’ve got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we’ve got an auto industry that needs work.
There are a whole things -- range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.
So I -- I do not take these things lightly, and I’m not in any way under -- under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people. So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.
All right? Thank you, everybody.