As the entire world now knows, President Barack Obama has released selected memos from the Bush Administration that detail certain aspects of the so-called "enhanced interrogation" ("torture," according to anyone who is honest) program.
The release of the memos has triggered a storm of controversy among liberals and conservatives. How Obama handles this will reveal a lot about his true intentions.
Back to the firestorm. Liberals want blood -- specifically, Bush Administration officials' blood, for approving and engaging in torturing of suspected al Queda operatives. (And, also, simply because they are Bush Administration officials.) Conservatives also want blood -- anyone's blood who threatens national security by releasing interrogation techniques which would, presumably, alert America's enemies about how we extract information from captives.
On Sunday, Rahm Emmanuel followed up the memos' release by stating unequivocally that prosecuting Bush Admin officials involved in the torture program was off the table. (Generating predictable outrage from the left.) Just 48 hours later, however, Obama wavered a bit on Emmanuel's stance, and indicated that he was not interested in prosecuting those who conducted the torture; however, he left open the possibility of prosecuting officials who provided legal justification for the torture. (Generating predictable outrage from the right.)
As I have written before, I am firmly opposed to torturing captives for two reasons: first, because it is not been shown to extract useful, actionable information; rather, the captive tends to "reveal" whatever he or she believes the guards want to hear. Secondly, and more importantly, I believe that torturing another person -- especially by the State, which can always concoct a reason in the name of "national security" -- is morally reprehensible. No government should ever have that authority -- especially since torture has been shown not to work.
One of the emerging debates about the government's torture program is whether or not actionable intelligence was obtained. The Bush Administration, no surprise, has been trumpeting that the program yielded information that helped stave off terrorist attacks.
Clearly, governmental inquiries of some type will occur to understand the "value" of the program, as well as its legality. Such detail will be important, in case future geopolitical circumstances devolve ... to the point where government officials determine that torturing captured enemies for their intelligence is worthwhile.
I see a government investigation proceeding in one of two ways: 1) a search for the truth (to guide future decisions, among other reasons), in which case the best approach would be to grant complete immunity to participants; or, 2) a criminal prosecution, in which case immunity would not be granted to all participants.
According to Emmanuel, the administration is not interested in pursuing a criminal investigation. According to Obama, those who provided the legal justification and cover for the torture might be prosecutable.
Granted, Congress operates independently of the executive branch, and may proceed along a path different from what Obama would prefer. Nevertheless, he will certainly share his preference regarding the direction and purpose of any inquiry. Where he ultimately leans will be quite telling.
So ... what shall it be -- truth, or consequences?
Posts
