The Torture Memos: A Quick Response to George W. Bush's Officials

Related Link: Text of the Torture Memos
Related Post: 4 Torture Memos Released, No Prosecutions of Interrogators

I am still concerned that the Obama Administration's release of four Bush-era memoranda documenting the authorisation of torture (or, as Politico insists, "interrogation techniques") is, in part, a deflection from ongoing issues over Executive power and surveillance/rendition/indefinite detention. And I suspect we'll be pursuing those matters in days to come.

But for today, as former members and acolytes of the Bush Administration absolve themselves in the press:

This was torture sanctioned by President Bush and his chief advisors. This was torture that was illegal, immoral, and ineffective. This was a torture that did not win the "War on Terror" but damaged US foreign policy and American standing with other countries and peoples.

This was a brute exercise of power, sanctioned by (but not actually responding directly to) the brutal attacks upon the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in September 2001.

To Michael Hayden, former Director of the National Security Agency/Central Intelligence Agency, and Michael Mukasey, former Attorney General, who write in the Wall Street Journal that the release of the memoranda "makes the problem [of national security] worse":

Both of you, without question or qualm, carried out the orders that violated the Geneva Conventions, defied agencies such as the Red Cross, suspended any notion of US and international law, and --- in certain cases --- led to injury and death. Both of you strove for years to hide these orders. Both of you put out stories of the effectiveness of "interrogation techniques" which were later discredited.

To William Kristol, who sneers at the statement of current Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair that "[these] methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing":

From your editor's chair at the Weekly Standard and with yo social-political connections in Washington, you pressed for a war --- one that would both demonstrate and assure American superiority --- you had been advocating since 1998. Initially, you declared that war against the "jihadists". But, even as you supported the torture of detainees, your priority was not our safety from Al Qa'eda but the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. And, after that, you wanted the overthrow of the Iranian Government.

Your primary concern was not "terrorists". Yet you were happy, in the name of perpetual war, to promote any method, no matter how effectively it shredded our own laws and standards rather than the threat from our enemies.

To Karl Rove, who Twitters about Kristol's column: "Another Must Read":

Your primary, maybe only, concern about the measures taken by the Bush Administration was the extent to which they supported the election and re-election campaigns of Republican candidates. If we raised our voices against torture, that only bolstered your message that we were soft, unreliable, appeasers of the enemy. And you too were only using Al Qa'eda as a foil to get to your #1 battle, the War against Iraq that would ensure a Republican mandate for years to come.

Forgive me, gentlemen, if you are receiving an undue share of my anger, given that the former President, George W. Bush, and the leaders of the campaign for torture, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should also be held to account. But as they have not responded to yesterday's news....

Your fatuous, sometimes whining criticism of this current Administration for revealing your illegal, immoral, counter-productive seizure and manipulation of power is no better than the criminal blaming the judge who allowed the evidence into his courtroom.

You are deceivers and liars. In an ideal world, you would be held to criminal account for your actions; in this world (ironically thanks to yesterday's Administration decisions) you will face no formal prosecution. Therefore, we can only hope that your ex post facto excuses and pretenses reinforce a determination to ensure that this shall never happen again.

Tea Parties, Violence, and Politics (And, Yes, This is a Serious Post)

Warner Todd Huston, RedState.com, 16 April 2009: "It may seem ominous, but violence is sometimes acceptable depending on the cause."

Well, it's been a lot of fun with the Tea Parties this week. The too-blatant manipulation, by certain political groups and media outlets, of a "revolution" was well-suited to parody, even beyond the unfortunate double entendre of the protest's chosen beverage.

Today, however, the fun gives way.

I had refrained from commenting on the supposed political agenda of the protests, largely because there was no coherence and no attention to the financial/economic crisis beyond "Cut Our Taxes". There was no recognition, for example, that the Obama Administration's stimulus package rests in part on tax cuts, let alone that any solution to the current economic mess has to go beyond simply slashing the tax bill further.

(As always, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show team rode the wave. First, Stewart declared,  "if there's one thing I know about American people, they love baseball, kicking ass, and paying taxes to the Government". Then, the Daily Show's next item was on the investment company Goldman Sachs and its $1.5 billion profit.)

At the same time, I did not want to comment on elements of the wider, visceral protest which went beyond hate-Government to hate-Obama and which were beyond-borderline racist and Red-baiting. It would be too easy to highlight the single poster who compared Obama's economic policy to Hitler's treatment of the Jews, ignoring the majority of demonstrators  who --- however much I may disagree with their politics, however much I believe they were expressing anger or fear rather than a constructive politics --- were there from genuine concern for the future.

In short, I was hoping that this whipped-up Tea Party would pass and that, in the aftermath, we could return to the serious, ongoing engagement with the state of the American and international economic systems.

Then, yesterday afternoon, I read this blog by "freelance writer" Warner Todd Huston on RedState.com:

A dispassionate review of where we are today would tend to say that tax day violence is not justified in any way. But are future tax protests as off limits to violence if government does not heed the warnings delivered now? Even more to the point does a flat refusal to ever employ violence encourage recalcitrant government to ignore protests safely assuming that no real consequences for their actions will ever be imposed on them?

RedState.com is stridently pro-Republican and stridently opposed to Obama's policies, but it is not an "extremist" website. So I was shaken by this far-from-implicit call to discuss the possibility of violent protest: "It may seem ominous, but violence is sometimes acceptable depending on the cause." Huston had crossed a line that had been tight-roped for weeks by demagogues such as Fox News's Glenn Beck and politicians such as Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann as they tried to whip up "resistance".

Of course, the majority of yesterday's demonstrators are unlikely to be contemplating the violence that Huston discusses. At the same time, violence can occur and escalate not from the decision of a majority, but from a minority's stoking of the fear and anger that was too-clearly evident yesterday.

I am conscious as I write, though, that identifying that seed of violence is not enough. Otherwise, it risks the appearance of countering fear-mongering with fear, of point-scoring by tsk-tsking how the protests are destructive rather than productive.

Zephyr Teachout wrote in The Nation yesterday, "[The] tea parties represent a genuine, authentic civic anger." I'm not as sure that this is an "anger that the public has been largely shut out of the most important public decisions of our time" --- it seems more anger both from not understanding the complex economic mal-functions behind the current crisis and from following the easy "answers"/images of bad/evil/"left" Obama and the current Administration.

Yet the lesson remains: as fun as it was, the tea-bagging parody doesn't shoo away that anger and it certainly doesn't banish the polarising and manipulative groups behind the protests. Emotions will continue to be fraught, so politics must be fought through engagement rather than dismissal.

Text and Analysis of Obama Statement: 4 Torture Memos Released, No Prosecutions of Interrogators

Related Post: The Torture Memos - A Quick Response to George W. Bush’s Officials

UPDATE: Full Text of the 4 Torture Memos

We'll have full analysis of President Obama's statement tomorrow, but here's an immediate reading.

This is good politics. Very good. The Obama Administration pins blame for unacceptable practices on the Bush Administration while finally getting the hook of a criminal showdown for any of those officials. The absolution of "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith" is also the signal that Bush advisors who ordered those activities will not suffer a Truth Commission or judicial hearings.

It's also good for another troubling reason. There are a series of cases where the Obama Administration is not only holding onto its predecessor's executive powers but fighting to ensure there are no court hearings on whether those powers are legal. From warrantless surveillance to rendition to unlimited detention, Gitmo-style, at Camp Bagram in Afghanistan, the Administration is playing the political game of "Look at the other guys, don't fret about us."

OBAMA STATEMENT

The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program - and some of the practices - associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

The "Lightning War" and US-Mexico Relations

Related Post: 10 Facts on Mexico's "Lightning War"

Violence in Mexico is drawing increased attention, as drug producers and sellers fight a running battle with Mexican security services. More than 800 policemen and soldiers have been killed since January 2008.

The violence is far from new --- and it's not just a "Mexican" situation, as even a cursory glance at the US will show --- but it is a challenge to the institutional stability of the country. And, inevitably, there will be a spill-over into American political culture, as the toll from drugs becomes entangled with the US discourse over the "border" and immigration.

As President Obama visits Mexico, Ioan Grillo writes for our partners Global Post:

Obama grapples with Mexico’s “lightning war”

TIJUANA, Mexico — The policemen had stopped their squad car for a few seconds on a major avenue in this burgeoning border city on Saturday evening when Kalashnikov bullets flew out of a passing Plymouth Voyager.

Enrique Monge, a 31-year-old beat cop, returned fire but his effort was in vain. A cap shot through his waist and scattered into several vital organs and he died hours later in hospital.

At the wheel, his 23-year-old partner Benjamin Hernandez was hit by a bullet directly in his thorax. By a miracle, he was still fighting for his life four days later as President Barack Obama readied to fly to Mexico City and discuss such violence with Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Read the rest of the article...

After the Rescue: What Now with Somalia?

Related Post: Combating Somali Piracy - How Many People Can We Afford To Kill?

UPDATE (15 April): Pirates have attacked The Liberty Sun, a U.S.-flagged cargo ship bound for Mombasa, Kenya, but failed to board the ship. Four other ships have been hijacked in the Gulf of Aden since Sunday.

In the aftermath of the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates by US Navy SEALs, analysis has generally been dominated by cheerleading and a good bit of relief that the United States and (for supporters of the current Administration) President Obama have not appeared "weak". The New York Times breathlessly wrote, "To Rescue Captain, U.S. Snipers Held Steady Despite Many Moving Parts", while Watergate felon turned talk show host G. Gordon Liddy settled for, "Gman is joined by a former sniper who tells you what thoughts race through your mind when facing a killer".

Tristan McConnell, writing for our partners Global Post, goes an essential step farther. While Captain Phillips and his crew might be safe, the naval lanes off Somalia are not secure: "Short of escorting every one of the estimated 20,000 ships that use the Suez Canal every year, it is an impossible task to end piracy with navy patrols."

The obvious but difficult point? The piracy is connected to the economic and political instability in Somalia, and unless the US Government can dream up a military solution for the difficulties in Mogadishu --- "no one so far has managed to defeat Somalis by outgunning them, either on land or at sea" --- it's going to have to find a different approach that is far removed from the temporary solution of one-bullet sniping a pirate.

HOW TO STOP THE SOMALI PIRATES

Analysis: More Gunships May Not Be the Answer

NAIROBI — After the dramatic rescue of American captain Richard Phillips from the clutches of Somali pirates, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his determination to end piracy: “We remain resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region,” he said.

Easier said than done. Dozens of international warships patrolling the Indian Ocean coastline have done little to deter the pirates.

And pirates seized an Italian tug with impunity even as the the world watched a small lifeboat of Somali pirates with their one solitary hostage facing down a flotilla of U.S. warships.

Currently the pirates hold more than a dozen ships with more than 200 hostages from a range of mostly poor countries.

Read rest of article....