Let’s Review
Attorney General Eric Holder has announced a preliminary investigation into abusive interrogation tactics. This investigation was recommended by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The scope of the investigation is limited to people who ignored the Bush Administration’s own guidelines for interrogating captives. David Broder still thinks this is too much.
Broder’s unique brand of centrist glop usually isn’t worth the time of day, but insofar as this article reflects an emerging ‘consensus’ on torture prosecutions, I think it’s worth addressing. Here are my problems with his broader argument:
1) At the end of the article, Broder compares his willingness to excuse torture to Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon. A presidential pardon, however, is a legitimate legal mechanism for absolving criminals. There is nothing legitimate about ignoring a recommendation from your own office to investigate prisoner abuse. Instead, it’s a straightforward endorsement of sweeping things under the rug.
2.) Broder worries that any investigation could implicate the higher-ups who authorized torture. This is an odd argument – a few paragraphs ago, Broder acknowledged that Holder is only proposing a preliminary investigation into tactics that violated the Bush Administration’s own interrogation guidelines. So why is Broder worried that former Bush officials would be implicated in prisoner abuse?
Broder won’t say it out loud, but I think he recognizes that any torture investigation will yield some uncomfortable questions about the link between the Bush-era OLC memos that established guidelines for “enhanced interrogation” and subsequent instances of extreme prisoner abuse. You can’t declare certain abusive practices off-limits while justifying others. Mistreatment and abuse won’t be sanitized or cordoned off.
3) It’s a bit depressing that Broder’s criteria for determing a policy’s legitimacy hinges on how much support it can attract from members of our political establishment. If Broder thinks that public opinion should be irrelevant to the fair and impartial application of the law, he sure has a weird way of showing it.
Finally, Broder suggests that any investigation will only distract the Administration from other important priorities. As straightfoward political analysis, I think this is hard to disagree with. So I have a question for my liberal and centrist-minded friends: would you be willing to lose a shot at cap-and-trade or healthcare reform or insert your preferred political priority here for a real chance at investigating torture?
Finally, Broder suggests that any investigation will only distract the Administration from other important priorities.
I’m pretty sure a DoJ prosecutor wouldn’t have been working on cap & trade or health care. Plus Republicans already frame every Obama decision as the next step on our path to Stalinism. In short, I don’t think there is all that much downside, and there is the upside of stigmatizing future torture.Report
As a generally liberal-minded person, yes, I would be willing to lose a shot at cap-and-trade or healthcare reform for a real chance at investigating torture?
As a patriot, I believe that equality before the law, and the rule of law over administrations or politics is a fundamental aspect of American governance. Ignoring torture undermines the rule of law, and thus threatens our country. I think that bankruptcy because of health care and the potential consequences of climate change are also threats, but they’re primarily fiscal threats, not existential threats.Report
An admirable sentiment.Report
“So I have a question for my liberal and centrist-minded friends: would you be willing to lose a shot at cap-and-trade or healthcare reform or insert your preferred political priority here for a real chance at investigating torture?”
In another world, where the GOP hadn’t clearly established a policy of “f*ck, no!”, this would be a valid question. In this world, not so much.Report
Barry –
My point is that a divisive torture investigation will drain popularity and political capital from the Dems, not alienate moderate Republicans who might otherwise support their agenda.Report
Yes, that’s just what happened during Ollie North’s visits to Congress, isn’t it?Report
Yes. It’s significantly more important to reestablish the legitimacy of the government by investigating torture before going on making more laws (that may or may not be followed anyway.)Report
“So I have a question for my liberal and centrist-minded friends: would you be willing to lose a shot at cap-and-trade or healthcare reform or insert your preferred political priority here for a real chance at investigating torture?”
It’s a false choice. The Obama administration can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Wait, no they can’t. Well. maybe they can learn.Report
Will, of course with your final question you’ve fallen into the Broder swamp: “Would you be willing to investigate Bush administration violation of the law if it hurt you liberals politically?” First, why should it hurt liberal programs politically if the truth on this matter emerged? Could Republicans actually be less supportive of Democratic initiatives than they already are? (I didn’t think so.) Second, I’m as familiar with realpolitik as the next guy, but should this really be the ONLY criterion by which we judge whether an investigation is warranted? The fact is, of all the acts in our history that have led to criminal indictment or impeachment, authorizing the use of torture and killing innocent as well as guilty detainees through the use of torture is FAR AND AWAY the worst. If this is allowed to pass into history unremarked because it may be politically problematic, God only knows what future horrors await us. I imagine losing cap and trade, if that is in fact one result, would be a very small price to pay to avoid that outcome.
Incidentally, as several others have pointed out, Broder is flat-out lying when he says he supported Nixon impeachment. Here’s the relevant excerpt from his column on that subject:
[A] tidal wave of [pro-Nixon] public sentiment… would sweep over the Congress…. Nixon’s spokesmen… the impeachment investigation ordered by the Democratic leadership last October is nothing but a partisan assault on the integrity of the presidential office. If the Judiciary Committee were repudiated… the White House charge would surely have been proven to the public’s satisfaction.
The President’s supporters in the country would cry vengeance against a Congress…. Democratic candidates would find themselves on the defensive about a 93rd Congress which did little but posture on impeachment…. Resurgent Republicans, rallying around the vindicated President, would almost certainly regain the offensive, exploiting the predictable public reaction against the press and the Democratic Congress which had burdened the country with the Watergate-impeachment fiasco….
But not all Republican congressmen would be enjoying the turnabout. Those few dozen who had broken ranks to vote for impeachment would find themselves pariahs in the party of Richard Nixon…. Many of them would undoubtedly wonder whether there was any way to remain in public office as Republicans….
All this is well within the realm of possibility. All that has to happen is for the House to exonerate the President by voting no bill of impeachment…Report
Sheldon –
Maybe my post wasn’t clear, but I am definitely in favor of investigating torture. I’m not a liberal, but my question was aimed at liberals who (like me) oppose torture and want to see it stopped: would you be willing to sacrifice an important part of the progressive legislative agenda to see that this happens?
As I said above, I think there’s a good chance that a torture investigation – however necessary – would incur huge costs in terms of Democratic political capital and popularity. My question is whether Dems are willing to bear these costs.Report
“So I have a question for my liberal and centrist-minded friends: would you be willing to lose a shot at cap-and-trade or healthcare reform or insert your preferred political priority here for a real chance at investigating torture?”
I realistic question and also straight to the heart of the corruption of our politics that it is so.
Yes.Report
Will, do you think Republicans would rather discuss torture or health care?
Aren’t Cheney, Bush & co. worth sacrificing for the distraction it would create from all sorts of Democratic reform?
My money’s on torture.Report
Yes, yes investigate torture! I’d like to know what, if anything worked on the mujahadeen. And, do you libruls mind if we look at the Murrah Federal Bldg, Flt. 800, and Waco? Let’s get it all out…full and public disclosure, yes, no?Report
What about Area 51? What you trying to hush-up? Are you one of “them?”Report
Free Leonard Peltier!Report
Bob, Jaybird,
Like the sign Muldur had on his wall, “The Truth is out there!”
Yes, together we can find it!!!!!Report
It’s important to note (as Sheldon so helpfully did) that Broder is, of course, lying. He joins Richard Cohen and many, many other Villagers in:
Opposing the investigation of Watergate
Opposing the impeachment of Nixon
Opposing the investigation of Iran-Contra
Suporting several dozen investigations of Clinton, and his impeachment.
Opposing any investigations into the Dubya administration.
For those of us actual liberals (as opposed to Villager liberals who have WaPo columns), one of those things above is not like the other.Report