Tortured Logic: Obama Writes Off Old Crimes While Promoting New Outrages
Robin T Cox
Written by Chris Floyd
http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/3/1743-tortured-logic-obama-writes-off-old-crimes-while-promoting-new-outrages.html
http://tinyurl.com/cdhpqg
I have little to say at the moment on the details of the Bush torture memos
released by the Obama Administration, beyond what I have been writing for
many years now about these sickening practices, and what they say about
America's bipartisan, imperial elite, which countenanced them, and often
openly championed them. (I think my first piece on America's torture system
was written in early spring 2002 -- a column printed in the Moscow Times,
drawn from readily available stories in the mainstream press. America's
willing practice of torture as an official policy has been open knowledge
for almost the entire decade. But I will admit the bit about using putting
insects into the torture box of a wounded, deranged captive was new.)
Barack Obama is being given great credit for releasing the memos, although
as the president himself points out in his statement, their release was
actually required by law. I suppose it's true that the United States
government has become so degraded that we must be surprised and glad when a
president actually obeys the law when it suits him, but I must say that I
can't find any great cause for rejoicing -- especially as Obama's statement
immediately and definitely ruled out prosecuting any of the direct
perpetrators of these criminal actions.
I know that some are holding on to the hope that Obama's carefully worded
statement leaves open the door to prosecuting the actual instigators of the
crimes -- the top officials of the Bush Administration, including George W.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and a host of other very senior officials
and advisers; but I believe this is wishful thinking in the extreme. Look
again at what Obama actually said:
<quote>
But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will
be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our
national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in
concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is
why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on
behalf of our common future.
</quote>
If Obama truly believes that prosecuting unknown CIA operatives would
constitute some kind of disturbing disunity that the country could not bear
in the present situation, then how likely is he to pursue the even
more "disturbing" prospect of investigating and indicting a former
president and his top officials?
And now focus closely on this astonishing phrase:
<quote>
...we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together
on behalf of our common future.
</quote>
It is clear in the context of his statement that "the forces that would
divide us" refers to those who are calling for the instigators and
perpetrators to be prosecuted. They are the ones insisting on the
disturbing, disunifying course of "laying blame for the past." But what, in
the name of God, are America's "core values," if they do not include
prosecuting people who order and commit the high crime of torture?
And cannot every criminal on the face of the earth now claim the Obama
defense: "Surely, your honor, nothing will be gained by spending our time
and energy laying blame for the past. So let's forget the fact that I
(raped/murdered/robbed/tortured), and move forward, shall we?" For the
Obama defense is nothing other than the Nuremberg defense: "I was only
following orders. I was given assurance by the highest authority that my
actions were legal in all respects." Is this what we have come to? Is that
what now constitutes bold, progressive action? Is this, really, part of
our "core values," an essential embedded component of our "national
greatness?"
The more one considers Obama's remarks, the more offensive they become, and
the more flagrantly they insult the intelligence. For the very memos that
he has released give the lie to his own statement. Obama says it would be
wrong to prosecute CIA underlings for carrying out actions that they were
told were legal. Leaving aside the fact that apparently none of these
great, courageous, self-sacrificing, vigilant defenders of our "core
values" (as Obama lauds them) considered these tortures to be inherently
immoral, but simply wanted to cover their ass legally before they
wall-slammed the hell out of somebody or poured water down their throats
until they began to choke and drown -- the fact is, they were told quite
specifically by Bush's White House shysters that there was no guarantee
that their actions would be considered legal by a court.
Glenn Greenwald points out the "smoking gun" memo that destroys Obama's
entire defense -- for it is a defense -- of the CIA tortures: A signed
statement by Steven Bradbury, one of the key paper-pushers in the torture
regimen. Bradbury told the front-line torturers:
<quote>
Given the paucity of relevant precedent and the subjective nature of the
inquiry, however, we cannot predict with confidence that a court would
agree with this conclusion [i.e., the green light for heinous tortures].
</quote>
To be sure, Bradbury was politically astute enough to recognize that the
essential unity of America's power-structure elite means that it is almost
impossible for anyone who would genuinely and actively pursue imperial
crimes to ever reach the top, for he added:
<quote>
...the question [of prosecution for the torture techniques] is unlikely
to be subject to judicial inquiry.
</quote>
And just as Bradbury foresaw, Obama has slammed the door shut on such
judicial inquiries.
In the overblown, self-regarding prose that has become his trademark, Obama
lauds himself and his administration for their fealty to the "rule of law"
in releasing the memos. But of course, the "rule of law" also dictates that
those who have planned, ordered and committed torture be prosecuted. The
law has no special dispensation for crimes that might be "too disturbing"
to prosecute. And so his ringing conclusion -- "we have taken steps to
ensure that the actions described within them never take place again" --
rings completely hollow. How will failing to prosecute the perpetrators of
these crimes deter any future perpetrator in high office? The latter will
know that their crimes will be "too disturbing" to prosecute -- in much
that same way that the biggest fraudsters on Wall Street today are "too big
to fail," and must be allowed to escape the consequences of their actions.
In the end, of course, it doesn't matter. This story will be buried in a
day, or less, just as all the other many, many stories about the American
torture program have been buried, year after year after year. And even this
story -- as morally repulsive as it is -- deals only with the tip of the
iceberg of America's global gulag. It refers only the CIA's treatment of a
very limited number of high-profile prisoners. Yet tens of thousands of
people have passed through the belly of the gulag beast, where many have
been tortured, held captive for years, even murdered. And not only is this
still going on, but the Obama Administration is moving strenuously in court
to drive these captives even deeper into limbo, asserting that no one who
is plunged into the netherworld of America's little Gitmos in Afghanistan
has the slightest right to any tincture of legal redress -- even if they
had been kidnapped from the streets of some foreign city and "renditioned"
to Afghanistan.
The old crimes are being written off; the new crimes keep going on.
--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free