Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE TORTURE ANSWERS.
The answers Obama gave to two torture questions last night were very good. He explained why the United States doesn't torture, that while torture can be successful tactically as an overall strategy, it's counterproductive because of the way it affects our relationships abroad and our ability to win hearts and minds across the Middle East. But, to borrow a phrase, he didn't answer the "central question" which I think Jay Bookman gets to here:
Publicly, Obama claims America has changed course. On his first day in office, he signed an executive order halting “enhanced interrogations.” But that did not restore the rule of law; it weakened it further. If one executive order can ban torture, as Obama claims, then another such order can restore it, simple as that.
Torture is not a "policy difference." It is a crime. If no one at all is held to account, in the future, it will be a policy difference. The United States position on torture will be subject to the whims of which administration is in power. The next administration to torture will be able to argue that torture is a policy difference and will point to this administration's failure to prosecute anyone for it as proof. The next time we torture, those pointing to the prosecutions of men for waterboarding will have to face torture supporters who will point to the lack of action by this administration for support.
Meanwhile, it's disappointing, but not surprising that some in the press have accepted the right's framing of the torture question. Last night Mark Knoller, apparently a fan of 24, asked this question:
[I]f part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?
This is a leading question, designed to get a specific answer. If Obama simply says no, he's too weak to defend the country. If he says yes, he's admitted he is willing to break the law and conceded that torture will cure cancer and male pattern baldness. The question assumes that torture will yield the information needed, and it plainly disregards the law. It is a pro-torture question, and it's really unfortunate that we've gotten to the point where some people in the press are encouraging the executive to break the law rather than holding him to account when he does.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (4)
I'm really surprised that more progressives and democrats don't attack the press in the case of idiotic questions like Mark Koller's.
Obama's answer should have been: "I reject the premise of your quesion.... the premise of your question is based on a simple-minded assesment of the world, where somehow in isolation we know that there is an imminent threat, we know the individual in custody has the information, and we know what information we need. In reality, it never happens that way, and intelligence professionals will back that up. Next...."
Posted by: steveconga | April 30, 2009 9:29 AM
steveconga,
i like your idea.
here's my try:
"That's a phony question. When you torture, you can't know that there's a bomb or that torture will get you the information you need. You're only tempted to torture because you know so little and you feel impotent and panic. You only torture when you lack confidence in your ability to do anything else. And if you've reached that point, you've already lost....
This is a powerful country. There's always something we can do better. You only torture when you don't know what you're doing and have given up on America's ability to prevail.....
Posted by: Anonymous | April 30, 2009 9:49 AM
Anybody who listens to Mark Knoller's reports on CBS Radio's hourly newscasts knows that he is a hack from the Mike Allen school.
Posted by: Lee Gibson | April 30, 2009 11:15 AM
Brookman almost gets it right. No president can overturn Bush's abuse of power, because the implication is that any future president can just bring them back.
Obama can only ensure that his own administration abides by the law. It's up to Congress and the Courts to put the stake through the heart of the Unitary Executive.
Posted by: Jinchi | April 30, 2009 1:49 PM