« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Obama caught between rock and a hard place on ‘torture.’

Or, why the Romans did that "Remember, thou art mortal" thing*.

Rep Peter Hoekstra of Michigan would like to remind people in general – and the White House in particular – that the events of the last eight years didn’t actually occur in a vacuum:

Congress Knew About the Interrogations

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair got it right last week when he noted how easy it is to condemn the enhanced interrogation program “on a bright sunny day in April 2009.” Reactions to this former CIA program, which was used against senior al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003, are demonstrating how little President Barack Obama and some Democratic members of Congress understand the dire threats to our nation.

[snip]

It was not necessary to release details of the enhanced interrogation techniques, because members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002. We believed it was something that had to be done in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep our nation safe. After many long and contentious debates, Congress repeatedly approved and funded this program on a bipartisan basis in both Republican and Democratic Congresses.

Rep Hoesktra goes on with this shot across the administration’s bow: “I have asked Mr. Blair to provide me with a list of the dates, locations and names of all members of Congress who attended briefings on enhanced interrogation techniques.” That being, of course, the thing that the White House probably doesn’t want publicized. It also doesn’t want it publicized that it doesn’t want it publicized, but that’s normal for administrations in the middle of an embarrassment.

You don’t really have to read past the title of this Politico piece (“Obama muddles torture message“), but do it anyway. Its central point – that the President has attempted to have it every which way at once, only to discover that neither side of the dispute is particularly interested in hearing equivocations – is summed up nicely by Ed Morrissey:

When he released the memos, Obama apparently didn’t anticipate that calling the OLC complicit in a war crime would generate two reactions. The first would criticize Obama for failing to prosecute people who he thinks committed crimes, and the second would get angry over Obama only telling part of the story. Before the release, he only had a small group of people criticizing him for putting the issue in the past, and now he has everyone angry over his dishonest approach to the issue.

This is only to be expected, really. The current President is one of the most inexperienced that we have ever elected, if not the most inexperienced; he’s certainly one of the youngest, and up to this point he has led what has been by all accounts a fairly sheltered life. It is thus probably unfair to expect President Obama to be able to navigate tricky ideological waters with the polished skill of a Bill Clinton – or the stubborn integrity of a George W Bush – given that up until now he has had no real need to.

On the other hand, nobody pointed a gun at his head and made him run for President of the United States, so perhaps it is time that he learned the basic skill set.

Moe Lane

*Please note: I have not looked it up to determine whether the Romans did or did not in fact do that thing. If it turns out that they didn’t… well, they should have.

Crossposted on Moe Lane.

COMMENTS

  • vettepilot

    One of the things that p**ses me off the most about this administration is that they act like they were FORCED to take the presidency. Sorry, buddy, you wanted it, you own it! You VOLUNTEERED for the job, you spent the GDP of a small nation to win it, and NOW you’re going to complain about how hard the previous administration made things for you?! Give me a break!

  • texas214

    I he would have ever been in the Senate instead of out campaigning.

  • texas214

    I he would have ever been in the Senate instead of out campaigning.

  • lardin

    Many Democrats knew about the torturing that was going on in the name of the US does not mean the The past administration was correct in pursuing actions that violate the US Constitution. (The 8th amendment). What it means is that the Democrats who knew about it but said nothing are just as guilty.

    I understand the point, that we “needed” the information. And some will say this was the only way to get it. But in the course of trying to get this information we have sacrificed some of our core principles.

    Many people would say that it was necessary, that compromising our principals in the name of National Security has kept us safe, perhaps it has. But Principals only mean something when you stick to them, otherwise their meaning is garbage.

  • bobojake

    and LIED about it.
    To bad politicans can’t be charged with perjury.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    This little lying, cheating, backstabbing crud is going to get what he deserves over this – caught in a crossfire of his own making, and as more time goes on, the tools at his disposal fall out of his toolbag.

    His poll numbers – evaporating. The post-partisan myth – shown to be a flimflam. His improving the standing of America in the world – not materializing. His intelligence – no evidence whatsoever.

    He still has press support and hard numbers in Congress. Still got a pretty effective Chicago Machine. Still got unions. Still got the race card. Has succeeded in funnelling tons of taxpayer money to his peeps (like ACORN). But that’s about it.

  • spainishirish

    particularly when it is headed straight for the hole in the polar bear cage, i.e., released memos of how many lives enhanced interrogations actually saved. I don’t care how blue California is, the confirmation that waterboarding saved thousands of lives makes even liberals there stop and think that maybe their best interests weren’t served when these techniques were suspended.

    From what I’ve seen from Cheney, he has waited a long, long time for this opportunity to take his critics into deep water. He obviously has good reason to believe he can do it, too. Here’s the bottom line for congressional Democrats: this time, unlike they usually do, they can’t have it both ways. If they insist on hearings, they also will have to concede thousands of lives were saved and suspension of the subject of the hearings has put all of us in jeopary. Even their media sycophants will push them here. This isn’t a nice prospect for people who face re-election in 19 months. Already, we’ve seen arguments advanced that even if successful, “torture” isn’t acceptable. Now, that’s an intellectually honest argument. And while Democrats are accustomed to not having to make intellectually honest arguments, this one is unavoidable and costly to them.

    I don’t know how this will play out, but one way or another more than half the country will be PO’ed. You may call it experience, Moe, but I think it has more to do with the undue deference Obama was paid and the ability to act without consequences during the campaign and first few months in office. Come to think of it, that’s the same thing.

  • Joe_Cor

    between a rock and a hard place. But he will only be if the media portrays him that way. Otherwise, regardless of the facts, regardless of what the Democrats knew, he’ll be a crusader for goodness and light and Bush and the Republicans will be monsters. The only other way he could be in trouble is if Republican leaders aquire a backbone somewhere and aggressively try to get out front on the message side of this issue, by yelling at the top of their lungs that the Democrats were informed on what was going on. Any bets on that happening?

  • Hooah_Mac

    The first “core principle” is to survive. Everything else needs to be secondary to that. If you don’t agree, feel free to go to Israel or Iraq and shake hands with a homicide bomber to prove you really have these principles.

    I’d be willing to bet a whole lot of money that you are only so cavalier about it because you figured the odds and decided that YOU personally weren’t at serious risk. The government, and the executive branch in particular, which has a mandate to protect the American people, doesn’t have the luxury of figuring that it will happen to someone else so they can have their “principles”.

    Given 9-11 and what has happened since, I have completely drained my patience for those of you who whine about your safety, and at the same time criticize those who put EVERYTHING on the line to keep you safe.

    Also, homonyms are a pain, aren’t they?

  • Hooah_Mac

    *homophones*

  • spainishirish

    CIA leaks. We’ve had a big one already about lives being saved. I look for many more, with Democrats in full hypocrite mode trying to plug them and prosecute the leakers.

    This isn’t as dependent on the MSM as Obama would want.

  • Praying

    manic suicide terrorist flies a plane (or two) into a skyscraper in NYC, and 3,000 American’s die, you do everything you can to torture, abuse, mutilate, extinguish, and punish those associated with that act. I think the U.S. was far too KIND. Give me a break about “humanitarian treatments” – a) the “harsh interrogations were not a whole lot worse than what many fraternities put (or used to put) their pledges though, and b) I hardly call intentionally destroying US property and the inhabitants of that property “humanitarian”. Apparently the information gleaned prevented similar disasters in Los Angeles and on the Brooklyn Bridge. So cry me a river over the “abuse” of these terrorists – they deserve everything they got and more.

  • Jack_Savage

    And you had in custody someone who knew where they were, how far would you go in getting that information?

    As far as your point goes in “compromising our principles”, that is cocktail party hypothetical crap, because anything that can be survived after being applied 183 times is not torture, plain and simple.

    Also, please answer the first question. Pretend you only have two hours to get the info.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    is what you are doing to the discussion by presenting opinion (that waterboarding = torture) as fact.

    The foundation for your whole diatribe is based on your opinion, and not on any fact.

    Therefore….

    FAIL

    Next question.

  • Jack_Savage

    When they were out of power, Dems could whine about something like this ad infinitum – “They’re stonewalling! Why won’t they answer the questions!”.

    Now that they have opened this Pandora’s box, they can’t do anything about it. The foamy mouthed leftists won’t stop pushing for hearings, and when they come a lot of Democrats will have some ‘splaining to do. Ordninary Americans, who don’t pay attention to anything, will be treated to the spectacle of those who have successfully defended us being put on trial.

    Sweet.

  • Jack_Savage

    I am sure the only thing he was ever briefed on was what the cafateria was serving that day.

  • TallChE

    Just because President Jimmy Carter Lite says it is? The 8th Amendment prevents “cruel and unusual punishment”. Not all punishment. That come to us from the English Bill of Rights. The English used a variety of punishment methods at the time that we would not approve of today. Which is just the point of legal efforts of the Justice Dept lawyers in drafting the guidelines. It appears that they looked at the legal situation and drafted a set of rules that took the interrogation procedures to the maximum level possible, SHORT of torture. Was it fun for the ones subjected to it. Of course not. But until we have a 100% effective truth drug to use, we have to make due with physical efforts.

    PS – One can also make a legal arguement that the Consitution applies to United States citizens, which the targets of the interrogation were not.

  • Streiff

    1. this wasn’t torture, even the Dems are calling it harsh methods or being “meanies” and “poopy heads” of some such nonsense.

    2. 8th amendment applies to prisoners of war overseas? Who knew. Does this mean killing them in combat violates due process? Or that keeping them in Gitmo violates the 1st?

    3. What “core principle” was sacrificed? Keeping Americans safe? I personally have never heard of being nice masquerading as a principle, core or no.

    Actually what it means is that the Democrats know that this was necessary, possibly with the exception of Russ Feingold who barely has enough neurons to track the sun across the sky, and know they would not hesitate to do the same under similar circumstances.

  • lardin

    How far would I go? I would do anything and everything to get the information I needed, yes that includes torture. But I wouldnt stand up and say Torture is legal and therefore justified. I would stand up and say “yes, i tortured this guy. he had information that we needed. The information he gave us saved lives.”

    And then I would probably be arrested and tried for my crimes. My defense in court would be, Yes i had to but, We saved lives.

    However torturing people on a “fishing expedition” is not right

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    *That* should be fun.

  • vettepilot

    Based upon the statements made by Cheney, Fred Thompson, and Hoekstra,, it seems like they’re trying to back the Libs into a corner. Whether the message gets picked up or not is a different story…

  • Achance
  • Streiff

    reminds me of a letter to the editor printed in TIME back during the Cold War. The moron said, no I won’t defend the United States but if the Soviets invade I’ll carry out a guerilla war.

    You are really willing to place the safety of tens of millions of Americans under a legal regime that would require our military/intelligence personnel to place themselves at risk of serving long prison terms if they do their job? But they are in no jeopardy if they do nothing?

    Don’t you think that is nucking futs?

  • izoneguy

    a bunch of losers and clowns who could never get a job in the real world. While Obama is hailed as the “prince that has come”, it is more like the apocalyptic vision that must shortly come to pass.

  • Achance
  • Rod_Patrick
  • bk

    “If we had captured this terrorist before 9/11, would you have argued that it was worth having 9/11 not to dunk him in water a few times?”

  • bk

  • djemi

  • Praveen

    All nations have a RIGHT to self defence. Do whatever they can to protect themselves.

    Principals are for civic people. Not terrorists.

    911 is probably just a date or incident for you. Remember 3000 people were “Burnt Alive”. These folks were out to earn their living.

  • Right Reason

    to these cases. We are not talking about US citizens, or those on US soil. These “people” do not even qualify for Geneva Convention protections. They are non-uniformed combatants. By current rules of warfare, we would be justified in summarily executing each and every one of them. I fault the Bush administration and its reach across the aisle strategy for even making the issue debatable in the first place. He should have asserted his status as commander in chief under Article 2 and let that be the end of the discussion.

  • Joe_Cor

    we wouldn’t be in the situation we are today. I hope that the message gets picked up by others.

  • Rod_Patrick
  • Rod_Patrick
  • E Pluribus Unum

    But it’s a 51% enough, and not a 75% enough. At least we got a shot at turning the tide though, and that’s a ton more than we had Jan 21.

  • Achance

    to use Lee’s prophetic words.

  • djemi

    Is this Torture thing just a distraction from say the fast tracking of the health care c___?
    As far as I see it waterboarding does not equal torture but I can only hope that some smart member of Congress calls an Iraqi who has gone through real Torture to testify as to where Waterboarding is torture

  • djemi

    that I’ve just heard a great theory on the radio from some guy in MI basically saying that this Torture thing is just a set up for 2010 political cover for the Dems, they can just be running around screaming “Bush, Cheney, Torture, Waterboarding”

  • NotSoBlueStater

    His base — which makes up about a third of the electorate — spent the past 8 years convincing itself that Bush is a criminal. They elected Obama, in part, to address this.

    There’s tremendous anger in that base when Obama uses common sense. This causes him to jerk the other way to please them. Then, and only then, the the honest analysis begin. When you shine even a soft light on the charges made by the left, they just sort of melt away.

    I don’t envy the man. Truly I don’t.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    and if he’ll do what he said and filibuster EFCA.

    Comforting thought, ain’t it.

  • aesthete

    Right on the money, and I can’t believe no one else brought it up! The Constitution is a legal document enumerating the terms of agreement between the US government and its citizens, and as such, doesn’t apply to non-citizens.

  • texas214

    Were these techniques really TORTURE?, harsh, yes; torture, probably not. Before we can even discuss whether the good’ol USA should or shouldn’t torture (I believe we shouldn’t) you would have to determine whether or not the “enhanced” techniques constitute torture. Most of the techniques are tried out in training with various military and CIA operatives prior to being used; we wouldn’t permenantly damage our best and brightest on things that would constitute torture.

    This whole thing is a red herring because the left has decided without any input that it was torture.

  • Flagstaff

    “members of Congress from both parties have been fully aware of them since the program began in 2002.”

    “No,” she says, “not I. Didn’t happen. Uh-uh. Didn’t tell me. Nope.”

    In other words, she’s just decided to lie and hope there will be no testimony under oath.