Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Americans Can Handle the Truth

With the release of some of the Smirky/Darth torture memos and the deal for Rove and Meyers to talk to Congress about DoJ shenanigans, the justification for not prosecuting George W. Bush and company for war crimes continue to fall by the wayside.

Dahlia Lithwick takes down the worst excuses.

But it seems to me that along with good (or at least plausible) reasons for shielding Bush-era misconduct from public scrutiny, President Obama may also have some wrongheaded ideas about protecting Americans from knowing the truth.

Americans beg to differ. The president has been proved wrong in his claim that there is no political will in this country for unearthing wrongdoing. Polls increasingly show that—despite the tanking economy—close to two-thirds of the public want investigations into the Bush team's use of coercive interrogation and warrantless wiretapping.

SNIP

What else might the president be wrong about when it comes to concealing Bush's mistakes from Americans? Here's a partial list:

The line between "before" and "after." The position of the executive branch is that Obama believes in looking forward. America needs to turn the page; nothing is to be gained by digging up old skeletons; choose your future-facing metaphor. But as Sen. Patrick Leahy has taken to saying, "We need to be able to read the page before we turn the page." All crimes happen in the past. A legal regime that perpetually looked forward would be absurd. For years now, conservatives and victims' rights groups have used the language of "closure" to demand that rights be wronged and reparations be made when crimes occur. That's why 9/11 families were invited to witness tribunals at Guantanamo. Yet liberals, somehow, are loath to demand "closure" or "healing" or "resolution." When it comes from the left, such sentiment is perceived as bloodlust. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on looking backward.

SNIP

The fundamental mistake underpinning all the thinking above is that openness about past errors leads inexorably to ugliness, politicization, and rancor. But it's worth recalling for a moment that we are already knee-deep in ugliness, politicization, and rancor. Transparency is not necessarily the first step toward indiscriminate prosecutions of everyone who ever worked for President Bush. It doesn't mean that from now until forever, each administration will criminalize the policy differences of the administration before. It doesn't mean that all mistakes are war crimes, or that hereinafter all investigations are all "perjury traps." That's the kind of binary, good/evil thinking we were supposed to have left behind us last November.

If President Obama has some better rationale for hiding the markers along the road to torture or eavesdropping from the American people, it's time we heard it. But keeping this information from us for our own good is not an acceptable argument. The most recent OLC memos demonstrate precisely why the last eight years were so extraordinary. The suggestion that we just need to get over it is starting to sound extraordinary, too.

Read the whole thing.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Now let's think about this for a minute: what possible PERSONAL reasons could Obama have for not wanting these investigations to go forward?

I believe that it all relates to 2012, and Barack's perceived ability to get re-elected. As basically honest a man as I believe him to be, he's still a politician, and still is looking ahead to the next election.

He believes that espousing this effort wholeheartedly will cost him large numbers of votes in '12, and may even affect his ultimate legacy as president: that he will be perceived as bloodthirsty and politically motivated, and this will hurt him in any number of ways.

There is also, of course, the slight possibility that he fears becoming personally embroiled in such an investigation, in ways that he knows, but we don't yet. Or the only slightly greater possibility that his VP is involved somehow.

There are several other highly speculative reasons that have nothing to do with wanting to keep "looking ahead", but in general, I'd call it a virtual certainty that the real reason, behind the curtain, is that he doesn't think America can handle having our government dismantled in such a way is NOT really what he's concerned about.

We are at an historic crossroads, and we must know what our leaders did for the past 8 years. Especially since, from all appearances in advance of the investigation, every piece of evidence we have suggests strongly that our former president engaged in highly criminal activities, and our former VP did even worse.

If I were Barack Obama, I would pretend not to be interested in an investigation, until there was such a public outcry for it that I simply couldn't resist it, and then I would put the wheels in motion and adopt the attitude that it couldn't be avoided, or it was the will of the people, or some such, thus letting myself off the hook.

So then, it's up to us to keep the pressure on so as to allow him that cover when he has to cave.

Cynical? On my part, maybe. On Obama's part, I'm not quite as sure.

But in any case, I want to see GWB go to prison. And Cheney, and Rice, and Rumsfeld, and any number of other Bushites. John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and numerous others.

Because, you see, I can handle the truth. And I think most of my fellows can too.

So to quote Jethro Tull, "Let's go living in the pa-ast"

kentondem1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.