Skip to main content

Obama and torture: one campaign promise apparently kept

I asked for it several weeks ago, so it is only fitting that I acknowledge that President Obama appears (subject only to confirmaton when we see the details of his orders) to have done exactly what he said he would do about torture:

Promising that “a new era of American leadership is at hand,” President Barack Obama has promised that the United States “will not torture” detainees. A series of presidential orders will outlaw rendition flights, order the closings of the CIA’s “black sites,” and outlaw the use of coercive interrogations, physical abuse, and waterboarding.

The move has been applauded by many, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which said “a ban on torture says much about us - who we are, what we believe about human life and dignity, and how we act as a nation.” The Bush Adminiatration repeatedly insisted that they didn’t torture, but kept its definition of torture loose enough to allow a myriad of harsh interrogation methods.

And while Obama’s nominee for director of national intelligence refused to say whether he considered waterboarding “torture,” he assured that the practice would not continue under his watch. He likewise later told reporters that an Obama task force would examine past practices and said he thought agents who violated internal standards “should be held accountable.”


I will continue to disagree as vociferously as possible with economic or foreign policies of the new administration when I think they are ill-advised. But--if only for the sake of intellectual consistency--I will also accord President Obama full marks every time he does something right.

This is right. Taken in tandem with his EO on the closing of Gitmo, President Obama has moved to remove a major stain from the honor of the United States by disowning inconstitutional tactics that--Jack Bauer fantasies aside--have not made us one whit safer since 9/11.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Comments

Bowly said…
But will he really keep it?

But the orders leave unresolved complex questions surrounding the closing of the Guantánamo prison, including whether, where and how many of the detainees are to be prosecuted. They could also allow Mr. Obama to reinstate the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, by presidential order, as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured.

The new White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, briefed lawmakers about some elements of the orders on Wednesday evening. A Congressional official who attended the session said Mr. Craig acknowledged concerns from intelligence officials that new restrictions on C.I.A. methods might be unwise and indicated that the White House might be open to allowing the use of methods other than the 19 techniques allowed for the military.


To me it reads more like, "We won't do it anymore, unless we need to."
Anonymous said…
Obama seeks to ingriate himself with other nations who rely on the U S for so many things like security yet they want to dictate and put conditions on how we provide that security.

Obama has made the country less safe and the consequences will be dire.

It is not wise for a President to take a stand which appeals to the sensitivities of people who seek to harm our country.

www.rebuildtheDelawareGOP.com
Anonymous said…
Bowly is correct. That, and the actual wording of the order does NOT outlaw so-called "rendition flights": The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

Of course, Obama can say, "Well, we did not send [insert name] to [insert country] as a rendition flight. We cannot be responsible for his treatment once he is out of US custody."

(Also note that the "or transferred to another United States detention facility" means that the detainees can simply go ... to another overseas US jail! How precisely is that any different than what Gitmo is?)

In addition, what precisely is the definition of "coercive interrogation?" "Physical abuse?" Are we really going to include (among others, that so-called human rights groups have protested) things like "too much air conditioning?" That the "music is too loud?" Not letting someone sit down when they want to?

Prisoners in our own domestic state and federal prisons bear worse treatment than al Qaeda terrorists. And that's pathetic.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...