Obama on Torture: Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow

The Obama administration will not focus on prosecuting government officials who practiced illegal torture or war crimes, the president-elect said on Sunday, though he added that prosecutions and independent commission have not been completely ruled out. This was Obama's first major statement on the issue since April; over the past few weeks, Obama's aides have repeatedly ducked questions about what, if anything, the administration will do to enforce laws violated by officials under President Bush. The question topped the list of citizen concerns on Change.gov last week, out of over 70,000 submissions, but Obama aide Robert Gibbs refused to respond, leading ABC's George Stephanopoulos to press the question during an interview on his Sunday show.

"My orientation's going to be to move forward," Obama said. The attorney general has to stay above politics and "uphold the Constitution," Obama added, but his administration will focus on "getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past."

This answer tracks the language of many torture apologists (and advocates) in Washington, who posit a choice between protecting the country today and second-guessing the past.

Enforcing laws and prosecuting criminal defendants, however, is inherently about "the past." Prosecutors always work on "past" crimes; there aren't many "forward-looking" prosecutors outside of Minority Report. If the Justice Department declines to enforce recent war crimes, it will not be freed up to go prevent future terrorist attacks. It will simply enforce other laws based on recent violations.

No one argues against prosecuting Bernie Madoff so that the Justice Department can focus on fixing the economy, going forward. In fact, faithfully and uniformly enforcing the law is crucial to "getting things right in the future." Any deterrence produced via criminal sanction is undermined when future, potential offenders see that a law is not actually enforced. People are more likely to follow the law when they see that breaking it carries consequences. This is such a basic foundation of our criminal system, justified by the elemental rationales of deterrence and retribution, it is quite hard to imagine that so many seasoned attorneys and Washington journalists honestly believe that the best way "forward" is to undermine deterrence and the rule of law.

Comments (37)

1. Don't expect Obama to do anything substantive by way of bringing the Bush admin criminals to justice ... or at the very least exposure as criminals.

   First, there'll be the broad preemptive Bush pardons.

   2nd, Obama doesn't want to be killed.

   Posted by sloper at 01/12/2009 @ 11:29am

2. Posted by sloper at 01/12/2009 @ 11:29am

   Can't have it both ways, sloper...

   can't be "Obama is a gutless sell-out" AND "If he tries something, The Cabal will have him killed!"

   Pick one.

   Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 11:42am

3. Actualy, what happened most likly was that once the Bush admin and the CIA,NSA, DIA,ect.,all the alphabet soup agencys showed Obama the intel and the history of what is really going on out there..

   Obama yelled,"Oh My God"...went pale and instantly realized,(besides being in way over his head and that this is nothing like community organising) all the panic on the left in America is against America, and... should nbe directed at those who plot to kill us...and now he is responsible to keep us safe....and how the left here makes that difficult at best.

   and real life situations are now in his lap.....and things have changed.

   Did I hear a squishing sound as the bus passed by?

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 11:47am

4. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 11:47am

   MAASCH, do you think Obama is going to approve torturing people?

   Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 11:51am

5. A great movie for everyone to see would be "Rendition". This is why we can't torture. I know I'm very lucky to be very white with a very anglosaxon name. Hope you are all so lucky. What people don't think about is that if torture is not addressed, what's to stop them (USA or the enemy) from torturing you in the name of security or as retaliation. Torture is never the answer. If you don't want to be tortured then you can't torture or support people that do torture. It's as simple as that. This is the pure and simple reason that this practice must be investigated and stopped.

   Posted by nhdjlady at 01/12/2009 @ 12:06pm

6. Actualy, what happened most likly was that once the Bush admin and the CIA,NSA, DIA,ect.,all the alphabet soup agencys showed Obama the intel and the history of what is really going on out there..

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 11:47am | ignore this person | warn this person

   What is really going on out there JM?

   What intel can you refer us to, or is it supersecret classified - trust us intel, like that justifying preemptive war.

   The bigger picture here on 'what is going on' is using all those secretive powers you have gladly relinquished to your government to destroy our democracy and constitution by preemptive attacks on rights of association, rights of free speech, rights of privacy, rights of due process, etc.

   Don't be a fool.

   If Obama doesn't prosecute war crimes, then he is part of the problem, and not the solution.

   Posted by OneVote at 01/12/2009 @ 12:13pm

7. Mask,

   I don't think Bush approved torture..rather I believe Obama, like Bush or any president, will approve means that are within the bounds of human understanding or some such wording that allows us to get what we need..and keep the loons on the left out of the way.

   Look at the protest over waterboarding...and the silence on the beheading events...

   Should Obvama let events get out of control and we expoerience another 9/11 after he "returns the US to world approval status"(the left world that is)..waterboarding will not be an issue.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 12:20pm

8. This eantier thread and article are a very serious issue here at the TN and the hard left...but nowhere else...

   in the shops, dinners, factorys opr military bases through out the land, I am willing to bet torture as the left sees it for the Gitmo or Abu Grab is not even on the radars...

   A segway,

   If the NYT just exposed an American undercover mission and tactics of a CIA undercover operation to undercut Iran and its nuke program(inspite of UN demands!!)...

   shouldn't Fitzgerald or whomever, go after the leakers with as much gusto as the Plame case?

   And give those agents and mission planners jepardised a chance to write a book, move to elite land of enchantment,sip wine, eat brie and build a home in Santa Fe...

   Plus, have the ACLU help Iran lawyer up here and sue the US govt?

   Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 12:25pm

9. <i>Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 11:47am </i>

   I actually think this contains a piece of the truth. And yes, as much as I hate to cite 24 for something (I certainly wouldn't for the reliability of torture...), I think there's one thing it gets right. The news we get about the world only scratches the surface of everything that's going on. I'm not saying there's some kind of giant terrorist conspiracy to destroy us (I think al Qaeda has lost a great deal of its former strength), but I have no doubt that there are many more serious concerns than meet the eye. I would not be the least bit surprised if Obama was at least partially blown away by everything that he was told. Is this a slight against his intelligence? Absolutely not. I think his experience within government is limited, but also that he's incredibly smart.

   Why do you think every President leaves the White House looking much, much older than when they entered it? Clinton's hair went to white, Bush's hair is getting there fast, and many prior Presidents have experienced the same. There's a reason for that.

   Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 12:28pm

10. "I don't think Bush approved torture."

    Well, I believe in unicorns, so I guess they exist. Bush admitted over the weekend that he approved torture.

    Posted by onthehelm at 01/12/2009 @ 12:30pm

11. Well, I believe in unicorns,

    Posted by onthehelm at 01/12/2009 @ 12:30pm I know you do...so does most of the left. And if waterboarding stop another 9/11, ythen I dont care...and I would suspect neither would most people. I acknowlegde the left would not be among thoise. I accept it and move on.

    The dictaor and the dictatorship of Bush will apparently leave office, without a fight, as the previous 42 occupants have, this January.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 12:41pm

12. Oh yes, 'cause we all know that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are very concerned about violating international law (LOL)

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/12/2009 @ 12:46pm

    hooray!

    america can be just as crappy as al qaeda!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 12:55pm

13. well,

    if you want to stop the "jihadists",

    get the hell out of their countries.

    doesn't anybody ever ask why 9/11 happened?

    sheeesh.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 1:04pm

14. "Human Rights Watch believes that the use of white phosphorus in densely populated areas of Gaza violates the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian injury and loss of life," it said.

    larry, i bet that makes you proud......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 1:09pm

15. here's another one for larry's "heart":

    Toxic/Carcinogenic Effects

    The carcinogenic effects of heavy metal tungsten alloys (HMTA) have been studied by the U.S. Armed Forces since at least 2000 (along with depleted uranium (DU)). These alloys were found to cause neoplastic transformations of human osteoblast cells[3]. A more recent U.S. Department of Health study in 2005 found that HMTA shrapnel rapidly induces rhabdomyosarcoma cancers in rats.[4] The tungsten alloy carcinogenicity may be most closely related to the nickel content of the alloys used in weapons to date. However, pure tungsten and tungsten trioxide are also suspected of causing cancer and other toxic properties, and have been shown to have such effects in animal studies. [5]

    Reported Use

    As reported in the French national newspaper Le Monde, according to a team of journalists from the Italian State radio-television RAI, DIME-type bombs were being used in the Gaza strip by the IDF against Palestinians during July/August 2006. The investigation was performed by analysing samples of metals found in the victims' bodies and examining the unusual wounds.[6] Israel denied possessing or using such weapons.[7] In the current Israeli offensive against the Hamas there are also reports of use of DIME bombs.[8] · [9] Al Jazeera also reported the use of DIME-type bombs in the Gaza Strip by the IDF.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 1:12pm

16. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 12:20pm

    So Bush didn't torture people, like he said he didn't...

    or he did, like he said he did to Brit Hume?--

    "In an interview with Brit Hume that aired today on Fox News Sunday, President Bush admitted that he personally authorized the torture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said he personally asked "what tools" were available to use on him, and sought legal approval for waterboarding him:

    BUSH: One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … And I'm in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made.

    Bush staunchly defended the program, saying it saved American lives -- despite interrogators' claims to the contrary. He waved away the debate over torture by saying dismissively, "Look, I understand why people can get carried away on this issue."

    Last year, Bush admitted that he was "aware" that his national security team met to discuss KSM's interrogation, and that he approved of the meeting. His admission today suggests Bush had a far more direct role in developing the specific torture program, which included waterboarding, a freezing cell, and long periods of standing and stress positions (all of which have long been considered torture)."

    www.alternet.org

    Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 1:20pm

17. OneVote: "If Obama doesn't prosecute war crimes, then he is part of the problem, and not the solution."

    OneVote, thanks for simplying the debate. And, yes, an Obama administration will torture, his troops will kill civilians without cause and commit other war crimes, his foreign policy will continue to support oligarchy and authoritarianism, his justice system will incarcerate Americans for minor crimes--like being poor, policymakers will still not be accountable, the wealthy will continue to get wealthy and the poor, poorer. etc. He is after all the president-elect of the United States. What's really changed other than complexion? The Obama administration is NOT a transformational administration and, regardless of rhetoric, will not change the immoral character of the American Republic. Here is the capital of predatory capitalism. Here is the capital of government abuse of power. Here is the pulpit of greed and political dementia. In other words, listen to what Obama says, but watch what his administration does. This is Titanic II. Get a life vest, a wet suit and learn how to swim.

    Posted by afrothetics at 01/12/2009 @ 1:38pm

18. Obama is wrong not to prosecute. We must inundate him with this message. No questions asked. Write him daily, I am....

    Posted by lappercad at 01/12/2009 @ 2:08pm

19. In other words, listen to what Obama says, but watch what his administration does. This is Titanic II. Get a life vest, a wet suit and learn how to swim.

    Posted by afrothetics at 01/12/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I am pretty certain you are right. The "looking forward" crap is of course a cop out.

    Our government is making it an embarrassment and dangerous for US citizens to travel abroad. Johnathan Turley thinks that foreign governments may attempt to prosecute some our war criminals for us. Now that will be interesting (and justified).

    Posted by OneVote at 01/12/2009 @ 2:18pm

20. The use of torture alas, was one of many crimes that the Bush administration is seemingly getting away with. What about the most heinous crime, that of creating fictional reasons to murder soldiers and civilians in the Iraqi fiasco. Without trying these perpetrators and punishing their malfeasance, these criminals will reform their powers and be back again in the next political swing. You can count on it! The torture was a byproduct in comparison.

    Posted by Guitar Man at 01/12/2009 @ 2:34pm

21. I think PE Obama should look into the crimes of the Bush administration, they need to be held accountable for what they have done over the years. You can't have laws for one set of people who happen to have held high office and then another one for everyday folks!!! Truth and justice should be brought out to the American people, we've endured lie after lie with this administration and none of them are above the law as far as I'm concerned. I also agree we need to bombard PE Obama's office with this question of "accountability", we deserve nothing less.

    Posted by Caj at 01/12/2009 @ 3:49pm

22. There are no other words to describe Obama's refusal to move morally and forthrightly on Bush Administration torture than callous unconcern, cowardice or both. In hiding behind a possible future decision by Eric Holder he proves himself once again to be the gutless, commitment averse zero others have always known him to be. To approach such an important moral question in such a disinterested way one gains insight into why it is that Barak Obama's sensibilities aren't offended by the murder and destruction of unwanted babies either. In refusing to deal with this question Barak Obama makes himself complicit in the acts of torture himself. Keep that in mind when someone suggests to you that in him we have another Lincoln.

    Posted by john lowell at 01/12/2009 @ 3:50pm

23. Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 12:20pm

    Sir, you have the moral development of a warthog and would benefit from an inside-out cleansing compliments of Roto-Rooter. Give 'em a call. I understand that they take mucus in payment of their invoices.

    Posted by john lowell at 01/12/2009 @ 4:05pm

24. Posted by Thrawn at 01/12/2009 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I think it's the rich food.

    Posted by emile duBois at 01/12/2009 @ 4:21pm

25. john lowell, your continuing rectal fascination is proving quite troubling.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 4:24pm

26. Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 4:24pm

    Being in the closet would explain a lot about looney.

    Posted by Mask at 01/12/2009 @ 4:36pm

27. Posted by john lowell at 01/12/2009 @ 4:05pm

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    Posted by YourJomamma at 01/12/2009 @ 6:05pm

28. doesn't anybody ever ask why 9/11 happened?

    sheeesh.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2009 @ 1:04pm

    I suppose that's because some of us have a pretty fair idea why it hasn't happened again,viz. by sort of breathing down their necks, real close up, if you please.

    What did you call it?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/12/2009 @ 6:27pm

29. i give in, i give up.

    who needs laws, ethics, or a conscience.

    not us. right? far right.

    what's that? you say that's what made us a democracy? Made us America?

    s'what! maybe justice'll be more popular some other time. let's just stay bent over, China's not done yet. then we'll talk human rights & ethics...

    i do love the outrage for Obama not prosecuting asap, as if that hadn't been open to us all this time. where was your outrage before?

    Bush's WARGATE deserves a church committee, minimum. the first step for any hope of prosecuting.

    or else, i need off this planet. now.

    Posted by Liberella at 01/12/2009 @ 6:38pm

30. who needs laws, ethics, or a conscience.

    not us. right? far right.

    what's that? you say that's what made us a democracy? Made us America?

    Posted by Liberella at 01/12/2009 @ 6:38pm

    Your laws aren't exclusively yours. Most of them are derived from Europe, particularly English law. The country that is the mother of all parliaments.

    Looking at the sort of things both sides, Left and Right, identify with on this forum your problem is probably that you followed the republican idea in which you have substituted an effective and very powerful "monarch" in place of a titular president or titular monarch. That probably mitigates against a superior form of democracy by entrenching great powers in the administration.

    What made America great is not so much its derived laws but rather its industrious people that have made you the most powerful economy on earth. Coupled with that was your tremendous effort in WW2 against the axis powers. Prior to that war America was in the shadow of countries like Great Britain.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 01/12/2009 @ 7:27pm

31. Obama's assertions that his administration will not condone torture are encouraging. However, the fact remains that the outgoing administration's treatment of prisoners constitutes war crimes as defined by the Geneva Conventions, and Obama has both a moral and legal obligation to pursue charges. His failure to do so would make him an accomplice after the fact. If our own government won't do what's right, then perhaps prosecutors in other countries stand ready to bring these war criminals to justice. Maybe members of the "Bush crime family" should think twice before planning international travel.

    Posted by billtc at 01/12/2009 @ 10:53pm

32. Waterboarding was not the only torture perpetrated by this administration. As bad as that is, there are still thousands of photographs that are still classified, which means there are still unknown unspeakable acts about which not even the public is allowed to know.A hint at one of those "unspeakable acts" is the article in the New Yorker about the crematorium with bones in it at Abu Ghraib.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/24/080324fa_fact_gourevitch

    Obama appears to be milquetoast and more and more does it seem likely that he may have made a deal with Bush not to have any investigations into war crimes, which means we'll never know if and how he had people incinerated to death at that infamous prison. If Obama pretends we "have to look forward not backward",a cop-out if ever there was one, a foreign country will then be more likely to investigate OUR war crimes,instead of the U.S., which will only undermine our already low reputation in the world.

    Posted by mystic7 at 01/12/2009 @ 11:50pm

33. Much as we like to believe, America is not a nation of laws but a nation of men who act above the law. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other political gang members have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and of course human rights violation. They will never be punished or be held accountable. Obama will not have the chutzpah to investigate the criminals and to prosecute them accordingly for personal safety reasons because he is intelligent enough to know what's good for him and his family. At the end of WW2, the world hanged many war criminals, jailed many for torture; water-boarding, electrocution, etc were some of the crimes. The US under Bush practiced all these and justified their actions. The Nazis also justified their killings and their torture machines. The bottom line is when push comes to shove, there is little difference between men like Bush and company and the Nazis. Each comfortably justified their actions.

    Posted by LawOrder at 01/13/2009 @ 12:00am

34. It looks like Obama will at least keep the renditions to other countries alive. Gotta admire Bill Clinton for starting that!

    Posted by abell12ct at 01/13/2009 @ 12:14pm

35. Much as we like to believe, America is not a nation of laws but a nation of men who act above the law. Posted by LawOrder

    sad. we now live in a pluralistic hypocrisy. at least in nixon's time, we had spines and a conscience. instead, our children will learn, from those in our highest office, that our laws and even the sanctity of human life, mean nuthin.

    Bush's exit press conference reminded me of something:

    "So spake the Fiend, and with necessity, The tyrant's plea, excused his devilish deeds." -Paradise Lost

    Posted by Liberella at 01/13/2009 @ 2:04pm

36. No investigations. Pardons all round. The One-Party-State rules!

    Posted by mikecope at 01/13/2009 @ 2:17pm

37. For all the talk Obama gives us about not wanting to look back, that we should look ahead, be forward looking and all the BS, the truth of the matter is that on this issue of prosecuting high crimes, we are looking ahead. The question is, Mr. President elect, when you become president, SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE, do you think you WILL owe it to the people who brought you here (on change and hope) to appoint a special prosecutor to look into high crimes of the existing white house? How much more looking ahead can you get?

    Posted by nvannes at 01/16/2009 @ 6:10pm