Torture's Future

[PETRUS]

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama stated categorically, “We’ll reject torture — without exception or equivocation.” During his first month in office, he made good on his pledge, signing an executive order prohibiting torture or inhumane treatment. There is no reason to doubt that the order has been followed. This was a huge step forward for the United States.

But if he loses the presidency next year, Obama’s failure to deal with the legacy of torture that he inherited may turn out to be a huge problem. He has left the door open for state-sanctioned torture to be part of the next administration’s tool kit for dealing with the “global war on terror.” The leading Republican candidates understand that in many circles advocating torture is good politics. In their debates and in their foreign policy pronouncements, they are effectively capitalizing on a series of decisions that the Obama administration made as it failed to enshrine its own ban on torture as an absolute legal norm. Torture remains on the table as a future policy choice.

<snip>

The Republican candidates, by and large, have made themselves clear: they will not be inhibited in ordering torture. Rick Perry, for example, declared that techniques that might “save young lives” would be approved by a Perry White House. “This is war.” Perry said. “That’s what happens in war.” Mitt Romney, eager to burnish his tough guy credentials, offered a characteristic semantic dodge: “Enhanced interrogation techniques have to be used. Not torture, but enhanced interrogation techniques. Yes.”

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/21/tortures-future/

More at the link.

[JDPriestly]

1. Obama made a huge mistake on torture. He should have prosecuted

those who authorized torture. It would have been messy, but, as the article explains, Obama's legacy on torture will be viewed as ambiguous at best. He has been all mouth and no leg-work on human rights issues.

Obama had the opportunity to clarify American policy in this area. He chose not to take it.

Obama wasted his opportunity to stand up for mankind.

[DirkGently]

2. That's a huge point. Obama has let torture remain a political issue, leaving it open for others.

Same for the rest of the non-prosecution of the crimes of the Bush-Cheney regime. Even if re-elected, by not pursuing any of the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Rice, et al war crimes at once, Obama has effectively left the door open to revive and expand upon all of it. Until we see some actual leadership on these issues, they remain viable U.S. "policy" options for all who follow.

[mmonk]

3. Failure to address the crimes either before or after told me that the current

party is too weak morally to confront the assaults by the right on what had previously become the defining accepted character of our nation. I haven't come to acceptance of it or the abandonment of its previous principles of the New Deal. That leaves the citizens to try and confront the issue by ourselves.

[AtomicKitten]

4. I believe it was incumbent upon Pres O to prosecute Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

By not doing so, torture continues to be debated as if it is an unsettled issue, which of course it is not. As a consequence, the GOP Klown Kar has made it clear they WILL use torture in the future. At the very least, Pres O should have stepped out of the way and allowed Spain to prosecute the architects of the legal framework for torture. On this issue, I vehemently disagree with the president.