Accountability for Torture is Less Important than Building Political Consensus
I’m strongly inclined, in many respects, to agree with Glenn Greenwald and Michael O’Hare that the Obama administration’s unwillingness to really hold anyone accountable for illegal torture during the Bush years is setting a very bad precedent. I won’t restate the argument, because I think it’s pretty clear how it works, but read Greenwald & O’Hare if you want to see it well-stated.
I think the counter-evidence comes from post-communist Eastern and Central Europe. But especially from “central” Europe—the former Soviet satellite states that are now pretty successful liberal democracies. Places like the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, etc. If you look at these countries you’ll see that in many instances there’s been shockingly little accountability for Communist-era crimes. The general pattern is that opposition governments were elected in 1989 or 90, and then in the mid-nineties members of the old regime came back into power with their parties rebranded as social democratic parties. In Romania the pattern was different in that the former regime people came to power right away then lost power in the mid-nineties and then came back in in 2000.
But in no case did you have a really thorough investigation and punishment for past misdeeds. And that hasn’t led to a comeback of totalitarianism.
What you did have, though, was the establishment of a clear national political consensus about certain things. People largely agreed that Russian domination was bad, that Communism was bad, that joining the West was good, that elections were good and that whatever might have happened in the past there was no going back. This was different from the situation in Russia, where there was always the sense that the end of Communism was tied up with the idea of Russia “losing” a geopolitical struggle. And it’s also different from what’s emerging in the United States where there’s a continuing sense of partisanship—Democrats say torture is wrong, Republicans say torture is good, so the media talks about “contorversial” “interrogation tactics” and everyone knows that in the event of a new terrorist attack conservative politicians will run, aggressively, on an assertive pro-torture platform.
That’s a very grave problem. But that is the real problem that needs a solution. We need to find ways to politically delegitimize torture, to help build bridges to people who may disagree with us about tax rates or abortion or even the wisdom of bombing North Korea about the point that torture is wrong, shouldn’t have been done in the past, and shouldn’t be done in the future. And, importantly, about the point that torture actually shouldn’t be done—that you shouldn’t be looking for loopholes in anti-torture rules and seeing legal prohibitions on torture as a big hassle.
97 Responses to “Accountability for Torture is Less Important than Building Political Consensus”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I don’t see these historical situations as even vaguely analogous to what’s being discussed here, other than the common uses of words like crime, previous, consensus, etc.
Is the argument that these regimes violated their own laws at the time? Because that would be analogous. I.e., if the charge was that East German officials carried out, say, surveillance or imprisonment contrary to East German law.
In fact, there was a rather loud argument from the right over the past 8 years that the Executive really wasn’t even required to follow laws, and particularly not in a TIME OF WAR.
This is actually the same country, the same government, and most of the same laws — it’s not some new regime created by the dissolution of a former dictatorship or supranational tyranny or the merger into a separate state, nor is it some new Constitution and set of laws and people are debating whether or not past crimes should be judged by a new system of government.
WTF? This is anything but just being about “torture”. Jeez.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Lord almighty, if we’re not going to prosecute the bad guys can we at least pass some serious laws to help prevent it from happening again? Relying on nice presidents like Obama forever to prevent torture isn’t good enough.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Re: In Romania the pattern was different
In Romania the dictator and his hideous wife were put up against a wall and shot– not exactly sober justice, but acountability of a sort.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Doesn’t matter how serious the laws you pass are if you don’t seriously prosecute people who break them openly and notoriously.
The problem with Matt’s plan is that it’s very difficult to get the choad chorus across from us to abandon any position that irritates us. They don’t listen to reason, scientific evidence or electoral rebukes.
But when one of their own pleads guilty to or is otherwise convicted of a felony, that does tend to get their attention. Nobody on the right acknowledged that there was any corruption among Republican congressmen until the Abramoff scandal produced a round of convictions. Likewise, no conservatives acknowledged any flaws in the case for the Iraq war until Scooter Libby was convicted. And even now, there’s the barest of consensuses on each of those issues.
For a consensus to emerge on detainee issues and torture, someone deeply involved in those policies needs to go to jail. David Addington, Stephen Cambone, Steve Bradbury, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo and/or Jay Bybee need to go to jail. If they get to live their lives as conservative champions, the consensus Matt seeks will not ever emerge.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The Communist era governments were using torture, surveillance and whatnot on their own populations, whereas, for the very most part, what the US has done is torture and murder citizens of other nations.
Additionally, it is worth asking if the Eastern European countries you mentioned had any legal prohibitions on the books against state torture and murder. The Bushies were breaking laws already on the books, not to mention international conventions to which it is a signatory party.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Matt, I don’t think “accountability for torture” and “building political consensus” need be exclusive from each other. In fact, mightn’t the second require the first? Mightn’t punishing those who ordered and conducted torture make clear that torture is a grave wrong that our nation cannot permit? Surely that will drive home the point in people’s minds.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
And it’s also different from what’s emerging in the United States where there’s a continuing sense of partisanship—Democrats say torture is wrong, Republicans say torture is good
Pew Research Center, Jan 2007
Can Torture be Justified Against Suspected Terrorists to Gain Key Information?
Often Justified: 12%
Sometimes Justified: 31%
Rarely Justified: 25%
Never Justified: 29%
Don’t Know: 3%
Pew has been conducting the poll since 2004 and has consistently found that over two-thirds of respondents believe torture is justified in some circumstances.
Young people are the LEAST likely to oppose all use of torture. Only 25% of 18-29 year olds believe torture is never justified, compared to 36% of those aged 65 and older.
As for differences between the parties, although Democrats are more likely to rule out torture than Republicans, the difference is relatively small. Even among self-identified “liberal” Democrats, only 45% say torture is never justified. For self-identified “moderate” and “conservative” Democrats, only 31% say torture is never justified.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I was thinking just what #6 says. People are impressed by the sight of people going to jail. This seems to me one of the reasons *to* prosecute.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
What El Cid said. The analogy is absurd.
I’ll grant you this: it probably means that the Truth and Reconciliation model in post-apartheid South Africa is invalid for the same reasons. Because this isn’t the case of a transition from one constitutional or political model to another: it’s one of a constitutional system that was considered optional by a previous government.
The appropriate forum to address this is the criminal justice system. People need to go to jail, not provided wingnut welfare until they die.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Charles,
I think, though, it depends what people have in mind when you say ‘torture’. Some people would be fine with suspects getting a few slaps and a bloody nose, and maybe a few strokes with a cane, but would not be fine with the kind of torture that risks death, maiming or insanity.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Matthew Yglesias,
Do you agree with Atul Gawande that solitary confinement is torture?
Gawande writes:
April 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“The problem with Matt’s plan is that it’s very difficult to get the choad chorus across from us to abandon any position that irritates us. They don’t listen to reason, scientific evidence or electoral rebukes.”
You’re right. If the right is solely motivated by pissing off the hippies then there’s no point in dealing with them at all. Except for the three northeastern Republican senators I guess.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Nothing planned for the weekend, “charles”?
Going to see if you can bore us with the same old bullshit for the next twelve hours to fill the black hole of ennui that is your life?
April 18th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Mixnerspotter’.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I think we ought to plan all our Constitutional rights and legal standards around what polls tell us. That way we can finally get rid of a lot of these unpopular freedoms and stuff that a lot of people think get in the way of proper crime enforcement. I bet that we could finally get rid of things like defense lawyers for the accused if we could get a good plurality of those polled to be against it.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The only way to convince torture advocates that torture shouldn’t be used is to show them that torture doesn’t work. Forget moral and legal arguments. As long as some people believe that it works (which it doesn’t), those people will be in favor of it.
On this practical point, the problem is that torture advocates instantly retreat to absurd hypotheticals to argue that torture could work. Well, lots of things *could* work in theory. For instance, we could get all detainees drunk or bribe them with hookers or porn stars. Would that never work? What if there was a 1% chance it would work — wouldn’t you take that chance? Funny, I don’t hear the pro-torture Right making that case.
However, when you look at history (i.e., reality, instead of a hypothetical) you find that torture doesn’t work, that it produces unreliable and useless information and more enemies. Which (surprise, surprise) is exactly why the civilized world abandonded it. It has nothing to do with “moral progress.” It just hasn’t worked. I have no doubt that if torture actually worked, it would now be a routine part of our legal system.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
David Addington, Stephen Cambone, Steve Bradbury, George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo and/or Jay Bybee need to go to jail.
Be sure and let us know when that happens. Obama has essentially ruled out prosecution of the alleged torturers themselves – the CIA interrogators who actually did the waterboarding, “walling”, etc. So, apparently, Obama thinks “I was just following orders” is a valid defense.
As for prosecuting Bybee, etc., as Dalia Lithwick points out “the widespread understanding among experts [is] that it’s nearly impossible to criminally prosecute lawyers who were merely offering legal advice.”
April 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I posted this in a previous thread; I think it is actually relevant here. I’d love to hear how wrong I am or am not in this view. To be clear, I absolutely don’t think Tenet should be immune from prosecution for torture, and I absolutely do think all his actions in office with regard to interrogation should be fully investigated. Here is what I wrote (with a few typos corrected):
I would love to hear where people are at on Tenet and torture, and on his overall record. Is an attenuated defense of Tenet based on the context of the larger Bush regime a sign of totally broken moral compass? Hit me.
April 18th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
This seems right to me. Releasing the memos over conservative opposition is doing well to shape the national dialogue and build up this sort of political-legal consensus you mention. What’s important is preserving this episode in the national consciousness with the same kind of shame with which we regard the WWII internment camps. That positive fact explains why Malkin’s proposal for internment camps was a nonstarter, and that kind of national regret and commitment are the only sources of law that can effectively keep torture off the table in the future.
Some commenters seem to think that high-profile prosecutions will help to establish this consensus, but I’m not so sure. Notice that when people criticize these memos, it’s not just because of their morally reprehensible conclusions; it’s also that these conclusions constitute bad and irresponsible lawyering. Jeremy Waldron has an important law review article (Google “Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House,” published in the Columbia Law Review in 2005) explaining why the narrow, technical legal reasoning in these and other related memos are so problematic. Prohibitions against torture are what Waldron calls a “legal archetype,” a provision of positive law that also stands for deeper principles that permeate the law more broadly (other examples include Brown v. Board and habeas corpus rights).
Specifically, rejecting torture means endorsing the idea that our system of law is not savage or brutal; it rules in accordance with reason, justification, and respect for individual dignity — not through terror and fear. The OLC memos dangerously undermine this principle by treating torture prohibitions as small-bore restrictions no different from trade rules, such that lawyers can dodge them by parsing clever distinctions.
So here’s the problem with high-profile prosecutions: in a different way, they make the same mistake. In the current political climate, such investigations would unavoidably take on a partisan color. This would paint torture as a political issue, and undermine its status as a crucial legal archetype that stands in for our deepest commitments about coercion and the rule of law.
As Brandeis said, sunlight is the best disinfectant, so let’s scrutinize these memos and allow their defenders to look the fool. But if we want to ensure that our great country never again practices torture, then we have to build a consensus that stretches across the political spectrum.
David McNamee
PhD Candidate, Princeton University
April 18th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Touching on what Jim says at 16, it would be to Obama’s credit to have a full blown, open commission into the torture that has occurred, specifically to demonstrate that it does not work. Mark Danner has a good article in the most recent NY Review of Books on this point.
On the one hand, you have Cheney going around saying torture has worked, and there are specific instances where attacks were foiled because of it. Obama’s meek reply is to say “this is inaccurate”. An open inquiry would demonstrate that not only did torture not *help* (ie. there were no specific instances of terrorism against the US averted), but that it *hurt* (ie. false confessions led to wasted resources pursuing empty leads, as well as the damage to US reputation, etc).
April 18th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
An open inquiry would demonstrate that not only did torture not *help* (ie. there were no specific instances of terrorism against the US averted), but that it *hurt* (ie. false confessions led to wasted resources pursuing empty leads, as well as the damage to US reputation, etc).
I love it. You want an “open” inquiry, but you’ve already decided what the findings of that “open” inquiry would be. “We’ll give him a fair trial, then we’ll hang him.”
April 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
I think some people are jumping the gun here and making assumptions about Obama’s intentions – the same people who were certain he’d never release the Bybee memos, for the most part.
I can’t help but notice that every statement he made about looking forward and not tearing the country apart is prefaced with “this is not the time” or “at this time of blah blah blah.”
Ending torture needed to be done immediately, and was. Holding people accountable and setting a precedent for the future is something that can take place over a longer time horizon, and would be a lot more likely to take and work if there was a public outcry built up in favor of it – you know, like the one building since the release of these memos.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Blah blah blah, if you say someone did wrong and should be investigated, you don’t want a fair trial, blah blah blah.
Same old bleating, same bullshit poll.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
charles: lying, or ignorant?
Polls show what now, Chuckles?
Q. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?
By a wide margin — 58-40% — Americans say that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances.
Polls say what now, Chuckles
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Even as Americans struggle with two wars and an economy in tatters, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds majorities in favor of investigating some of the thorniest unfinished business from the Bush administration: Whether its tactics in the “war on terror” broke the law.
Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.
Chuckles likes to cite that one – one and only – poll because it asks a general question along the lines of “Can you think of a situation when torture would be justified?” Not a question about what people actually want done with actual terrorism suspects, and not a question about what people actually want done about Bush administration torturers. Questions that actually ask those things – rather than asking the equivalent of “If you could go back in time, would you kill Hitler as a baby?” – consistently show large margins opposed to torture, and in favor of investigating the Bush administration for their crimes.
Putting them all together, we’re left to conclude that even among people who say they can imagine situations when torture would be “justified” – whatever justified means, as it’s not defined by Pew in the question – most of them want the Bush administration called to account for their crimes.
As in so many other areas, the American people have left you behind, charles.
Quick, try to deflect the discussion into something irrelevant, like prison conditions.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Eh, Charles is at least touching on something worthwhile. What if you get everyone revved up to throw a TRIAL TO PASS FINAL JUDGEMENT ON TORTURE AND THE TORTURING TORTURERS and the verdict is acquittal? Is that an acceptable outcome? Because unless you’re going to throw a show trial, it has to be.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Sure, S., this is a nation of laws.
But given the polling data, given the reaction to the release of the memos, given the full-court-press the torturers put on to prevent their release, I don’t think we have to worry much about that outcome. When faced with the reality of actual torture – instead of some theoretical thought exercise – the American public recoils strongly from it, as any decent people would.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
And what if they get off on a technicality, or for some reason other than a determination that they didn’t do the things alleged? Your underlying position seems to be “of course they’ll be found guilty, they’re very unpopular”, and my question remains, if the legal outcome didn’t line up with this sentiment, would you still consider the process successful, the matter resolved, and the accused vindicated?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Polls show what now, Chuckles?
As I said, Josephine, the polls show that two-thirds of respondents believe that the use of torture is justified in some cases. This has been the consistent finding since 2004.
As for your attempted rebuttal of this finding, your second link references a poll that doesn’t ask about the moral or legal status of torture at all. Your first link references a poll question about U.S. policy regarding torture, not whether torture is ever justified. You can’t rebut a poll that asks one question with a different poll that asks a different question.
But then, even the poll you cite finds that 40% of respondents believe that “there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects.” Not exactly overwhelming popular support for your anti-torture fundamentalism, is it, Josephine?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Another aspect of this issue that is not mentioned is that measures taken against “foreigners” inevitably end up being applied against American citizens. In fact, I don’t think Gonzales ever made much of a distinction between foreigners and Americans.
Some of the intel systems developed to surveil Russia in the Cold War are now being applied against American targets. The fence on the Mexican border can be used to keep American citizens IN (a la Berlin Wall) as well as keep Mexicans out.
And it is hilarious that the NRA –which ranted against “jackbooted federal thugs” during the Clinton Administration — had no problem with the measures Cheney was taking. Who the fuck does Wayne LaPierre think Homeland Security is watching? If gun registration is sliding down a slippery slope, then what is institutionized torture?
So the REAL poll question that should be asked of Americans is:
“Should the US Government have the power to torture YOU if it thinks it is necessary? Should it have the power to insert needles under your fingernails — or 120 Volt electrodes to your genitalia?”
See how many motherfuckers say “Yes” to that. (I’m sure some will — at least 10 percent of the population is WAY to the left of the IQ bell curve. )
April 18th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I can’t help but notice that every statement he made about looking forward and not tearing the country apart is prefaced with “this is not the time” or “at this time of blah blah blah.”
joe from Lowell has now been reduced to desperately parsing Obama’s statements looking for some ray of hope that he will reverse course and advocate prosecution.
Obama just declared that he has no intention of prosecuting the men who actually tortured U.S. prisoners. Indeed, in his statement on the matter, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Denis Blair, announced the Administration’s intention to “absolutely defend” these torturers, on the grounds that they were just following orders.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Quick, try to deflect the discussion into something irrelevant, like prison conditions.
Do you agree with Atul Gawande that solitary confinement is torture?
As you can see in the quote I provide above, Gawande explicitly links our society’s acceptance of prison conditions that clearly meet the “severe mental suffering” definition of torture with our acceptance of the torture of foreign prisoners of war. As long as we turn a blind eye to the continued torture of tens of thousands of Americans in our own prisons, we will continue to turn a blind eye to the torture of foreign nationals in the war on terror.
Joe should also check out the TV show “24.” It’s one of the most popular shows on television. For seven seasons, the show’s hero, Jack Bauer, has been torturing men and women in the interests of national security. The show’s consistent ethic on torture is that it is a necessary evil in a dangerous world. Bauer is consistently portrayed as a patriot and a hero. And the audience loves it. Joe’s belief that his anti-torture fundamentalism is representative of the beliefs of Americans in general is completely delusional.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Likewise, Joe should check out the very popular movie “300″, because it’s filled with manly, manly men strutting about in tanned skin and wearing nothing but leather thongs, helmets, and capes. Not only was it financially successful but for some reason it really, really, really appealed to conservatives.
You have got to be shitting us.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Every person ever acquitted in criminal court after a fair trial was first accused of a crime. However, accusing someone of a crime means you don’t want them to receive a fair trial.
This is a logical statement – in Chuckleland.
April 18th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Senescent,
Your underlying position seems to be “of course they’ll be found guilty, they’re very unpopular”, No, that’s not my position. Of course they’ll be found guilty, because the evidence is so solid. I brought up their popularity only to refute an earlier assertion that they would be found not guilty despite the evidence because torture was popular. I don’t believe that was have to worry about people letting guilty torturers off, the way that the murderers of Emmitt Till were let off; that’s all I’m saying.
and my question remains, if the legal outcome didn’t line up with this sentiment, would you still consider the process successful, the matter resolved, and the accused vindicated?
If I, and all of the polling data, turn out to be wrong, and torturers are acquitted despite the clear evidence that exists of their guilt – the huge documentary record, their own public statements – then I would still consider going through the process, airing all of the evidence, and creating the spectacle of them being released despite the evidence to be worthwhile, because it would drive a national change of heart on the subject, just as the Emmitt Till verdict drove a national change of heart on segregation.
But this is all theoretical – torture is far less popular in 2009 than segregation was in the 1950s.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
“charles” is pacing himself, because he really doesn’t have anything planned for the next six hours.
He’s just going to throw out his usual bullshit for a while, then move on to his classic defense of child rape as an interrogation technique.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
However, accusing someone of a crime means you don’t want them to receive a fair trial.
As usual, you are hopelessly confused. A proceeding conducted for the purpose of “demonstrating” a predetermined conclusion would not be an “open inquiry,” it would be a rubber-stamp for what McKingford has already decided is true. It would be a joke. A kangaroo court.
No, that’s not my position. Of course they’ll be found guilty, because the evidence is so solid.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one. Yeah, the evidence is “so solid” that you can’t even get them prosecuted, let alone convicted.
If I, and all of the polling data, turn out to be wrong
That would be the polling data indicating that almost 70% of Americans believe torture to be justified in some circumstances.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
charles, thinking no one can read, asserts As I said, Josephine, the polls show that two-thirds of respondents believe that the use of torture is justified in some cases.
From the first poll I linked to: Q. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?
By a wide margin — 58-40% — Americans say that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances.
Then, your second link references a poll that doesn’t ask about the moral or legal status of torture at all.
From the second link: Even as Americans struggle with two wars and an economy in tatters, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds majorities in favor of investigating some of the thorniest unfinished business from the Bush administration: Whether its tactics in the “war on terror” broke the law.
Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges.
Not exactly overwhelming popular support for your anti-torture fundamentalism, is it, Josephine? It’s so cute the way you get hot under the collar when faced with facts, and turn to personal insults. It’s like wearing a tee-shirt that says “I’m getting my ass kicked. As for the fact that there is a substantial minority that can imagine situations when torture would be justified – 40%, Chuckles, not 2/3 – I’ll take an overwhelming 18% landslide. That’ll do just fine.
joe from Lowell has now been reduced to desperately parsing Obama’s statements looking for some ray of hope that he will reverse course and advocate prosecution.Reverse course? What are you babbling about? Barack Obama has never said a single word laying down a “course” of not prosecuting the people who ordered torture. There is no course to reverse – which is a very good sign, since the pressure on him to exempt the criminals from the previous administration from prosecution is intense.
Obama just declared that he has no intention of prosecuting the men who actually tortured U.S. prisoners That’s not quite right – he said he had no intention of prosecuting a subset of the men who actually tortured US prisoners (those who relied in good faith on the legal memos for legal guidance about the lines they were not allowed to cross). While doing so, he carefully parsed his language to not include anyone else, despite the afore-mentioned pressure on him to do so, a pattern of carefully-chosen language that he has never diverged from.
Heh.
joe:Quick, try to deflect the discussion into something irrelevant, like prison conditions.
charles: Do you agree with Atul Gawande that solitary confinement is torture?
Good boy! Now get down on all fours and bark like a doggie, my gimp.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Is there a reason why you are simply repeating the argument I just rebutted, instead of responding to my rebuttal?
April 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
chuckles: That would be the polling data indicating that almost 70% of Americans believe torture to be justified in some circumstances.
Polling data: By a wide margin — 58-40% — Americans say that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Yeah, the evidence is “so solid” that you can’t even get them prosecuted, let alone convicted.
You’ve never offered even a shred of an argument that there isn’t evidence of torture, yet you don’t want to see them prosecuted, and claim a majority supports both you, and torture.
So which is it, chuckles? Is there no evidence of torture, or are people aware that torture has been committed and support it?
April 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
El Cid,
No, I’m not shitting you. “24″ really is one of the most popular shows on television. Its lead character really has committed numerous acts of torture. He really is consistently portrayed as a patriot and a hero. Torture really is portrayed by the show as a necessary evil in a dangerous world. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you try actually watching the show some time. Past seasons are all available on DVD. I’m not sure what you think the movie “300″ has to do with any of this.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
El Cid,
No, I’m not shitting you. The Fast and the Furious is one of the most popular movie franchises in the country. Its lead characters have committed numerous acts of dangerous driving. They really are consistently portrayed as sympathetic heros. Driving dangerously really is portrayed as a cool, fun thing to do in a boring world. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you try actually watching the show sometime. All three of the episodes are available on DVD.
You are confused as usual. That movie is not very good evidence that the American people support your fanatical anti-driving-to-endanger fundamentalism.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I think I’ll quote a poll again:
Q. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?
By a wide margin — 58-40% — Americans say that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
As for the fact that there is a substantial minority that can imagine situations when torture would be justified – 40%, Chuckles, not 2/3
As I already explained, the poll you cited does not ask whether torture is justified. It asks whether “there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects.” The only poll that asked whether torture is justified is the Pew poll. Pew found that almost 70% of respondents believe torture is justified in some cases. The other poll you cited doesn’t ask about the ethics or legal status of torture at all.
Barack Obama has never said a single word laying down a “course” of not prosecuting the people who ordered torture.
Yes, he has. You don’t know what you’re talking about. The Obama Administration announced that it “will absolutely defend those who relied on” the OLC memos. The OLC memos did not “order” torture. The authors of the memos did not have the authority to order torture. They were just lawyers.
While doing so, he carefully parsed his language to not include anyone else
No, he didn’t carefully parse his language not to include anyone else. YOU are desperately trying to parse his language to salvage some ray of hope that he will reverse course and advocate prosecutions.
You’ve never offered even a shred of an argument that there isn’t evidence of torture
This statement is a complete nonsequitur. You claimed the
evidence is “so solid” that “of course they’ll be found guilty.” Your claim is laughable. The “evidence” isn’t even “solid” enough to support prosecution, let alone convinction.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
The movie “Spider-Man” was an astounding commercial success, and clearly portrayed to great popular appeal and acceptance the value to American society of a super-powered hero who can shoot webs from his wrist and walk on walls and ceilings. I think the connection is obvious.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I think I’ll quote a poll again:
You’re confusing the poll with editorial comments about the poll. The poll itself asks whether “there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects.” It does not ask whether torture is justified. The poll that asks whether torture is justified is the Pew poll. Pew found that almost 70% of respondents believe torture is justified in some cases.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
The movie “Spider-Man” was an astounding commercial success, and clearly portrayed to great popular appeal and acceptance the value to American society of a super-powered hero who can shoot webs from his wrist and walk on walls and ceilings. I think the connection is obvious.
If Spiderman really existed and behaved as he does in the movies, as a courageous crime fighter, I think he’d be very popular as a real person. Just as he is popular as a fictional character.
Still not sure what you think this has to do with “24.”
April 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
AS Greenwald has pointed out on his blog: the United States, as per the treaty we pushed for, is compelled to investigate allegations of torture and prosecute when torture is found to have occured.
The Justice Department, the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and a number of personnel involved have stated that the acts committed were torture; the memos themselves point out that the U.S. believed these acts to be torture when other countries committed them.
For the United States to supposedly operate under rule of law, those who tortured and especially those who “legalized” torture should be prosecuted. Period.
Every nation has offered the same excuses regarding how it is okay when they do it; the memos from the DoJ read like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s descriptions of torture used by the Cheka in The Gulag Archipelago.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Charles at 41: “No, I’m not shitting you. “24″ really is one of the most popular shows on television. Its lead character really has committed numerous acts of torture.”
—————-
Yes –and Fox’s 24 has about as much connection to REALITY as did Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies.
Anyone who’s been in the intel world knows it’s fucking bullshit crafted in the imagination of a rightwing buttkisser.
24 tells us more about the inner world of Producer Joel Surnow
– a SELF-DESCRIBED “right-wing nut job” than anything about the real world.
http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/02/14/will-24s-producer-be-able-to-challenge-the-daily-show-on-fox-news-channel/
But then some people distinguish between ENTERTAINMENT and the real world.
It’s kinda hilarious reading Socrates’s description of the prisoners cave in “The Republic” and comparing it to Charles’ posts. As Socrates noted 2400 years ago, the problem with Democracy is that brainwashed idiots get to vote.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
On a serious note it is interesting that polling that asks about “can be justified” differs so much from polling that asks about “should be done” or “should be prosecuted.”
The poll charles cites, like his use of “24″ as evidence, deals with the subject on a theoretical level. Can you imagine a situation in which a person would be justified torturing another person? Are you willing to root for a character who uses torture when it is presented as justified on a TV show? These evidence seems to suggest an acceptance of torture.
The polls I cite, as well as the huge efforts the torturers have been making to keep their actions secret, deal with the reality of Bush administration officials performing the acts they performed, writing the words they wrote, and establishing the policies and protocols they established. This evidence seems to suggest a renunciation of torture.
I can envision two explanations for the discrepancy. First, the human imagination is infinitely creative. We rooted for armed robbers in Reservoir Dogs. We’d get in the time machine and strangle Hitler in his crib. We’re willing to postulate the hypothesize about all sorts of things, and suspend our disbelief in all sorts of ways. However, those mental operations are quite different than the conceptualizations and beliefs that we actually live by and accept as moral.
Second, in this particular case, this was a secret program of torture prisons as implemented by the Bush administration, and wound up being about as respectable as we’d expect. They ended up torturing all sorts of innocent people, acting in a manner that demonstrated utter contempt for the rule of law and separation of powers, screwing up legitimate interrogation efforts, getting shoddy intelligence that led to terrible results, and leaning on the career government employees to cut corners in order to deliver what they wanted to hear. There’s probably some % of the population that both wants to see Bush administration officials prosecuted for torture and thinks the government should torture people in certain rare circumstances.
April 18th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
El Cid,
Do you agree with Atul Gawande that solitary confinement is torture?
joe from Lowell,
Do you agree with Atul Gawande that solitary confinement is torture?
April 18th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
He just gets funny at a certain point:
charles: Yeah, the evidence is “so solid” that you can’t even get them prosecuted, let alone convicted.
joe: You’ve never offered even a shred of an argument that there isn’t evidence of torture, yet you don’t want to see them prosecuted, and claim a majority supports both you, and torture.
charles:This statement is a complete nonsequitur.
Good one!
You’re right, my statement has nothing to do with your point about people opposing prosecutions because the evidence isn’t strong. I guess I just spaced out there for a minute. My bad. Lol.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Yes –and Fox’s 24 has about as much connection to REALITY as did Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies.
I have no idea why you think the fictional nature of 24 is relevant to the point. The popularity of 24 and its lead character illustrates the broad acceptance of torture in American society. Despite the fact that hardly a week goes by when he doesn’t torture someone, Jack Bauer is accepted by the audience as one of the good guys, a hero, a patriot. Do you seriously think the audience would accept him as a hero if he were, say, a child molester or rapist?
April 18th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Anybody ever see Jack Bauer fill out paper work? Argue with his boss about an expense report? Submit a time card? Set through a long boring briefing on “Zero tolerance for Sexual Harrassment, Take 318″??
We’re talking about the US Civil Service here. What Twilight Zone is this 24 broadcast coming from?
The fate of the USA depends upon the frenzied unilateral actions and judgement of one low level underling? Yeah , right.
Government managers don’t let people take a shit without the request being filled out in triplicate. Read the accounts of those poor FBI fucks who kept trying to tell Washington DC in 2001 about Middle Eastern airliner trainees who had NO interest in how to land a plane.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
AS Greenwald has pointed out on his blog: the United States, as per the treaty we pushed for, is compelled to investigate allegations of torture and prosecute when torture is found to have occured.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Who’s going to do this “compelling?” You? Exactly how do you propose to “compel” the United States to investigate allegations of torture and prosecute when torture is found to have occurred? Obama just refused to prosecute the CIA officers who actually did the torturing. How are you going to “compel” Obama to prosecute them?
April 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
The movies “The Dark Knight” and “Iron Man” were #1 and #2 respectively in US box office for 2008, and clearly portrayed to great popular appeal and acceptance the value to American society of millionaire crime-fighters in full-body costumes. I think the connection is obvious.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Joe from Lowell has a new idea for a TV show. On Joe’s show, the lead character routinely molests children. Joe thinks the audience will have no problem accepting this character as a hero, because they accept Jack Bauer as a hero on 24, and Jack Bauer routinely tortures people.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
For seven seasons, the show’s hero, Jack Bauer, has been torturing men and women in the interests of national security.
This is so revealing. Jack Bauer has been torturing people in the interests of entertainment, not national security. It’s a work of fiction. Hello…? Mcfly…?
Up next: Tinkerbell has been spreading pixie dust as part of effective anti-pirate operations.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
The movie “Kung Fu Panda” grossed $215m in the US last year, and clearly portrayed to great popular appeal and acceptance the value to American society of pandas with kung fu skills. I think the connection is obvious.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
No, D, Jack Bauer tortures people in the interests of national security. Kiefer Sutherland plays Jack Bauer in the interests of entertainment. Try to understand the difference.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Jack Bauer has been torturing people in the interests of entertainment, not national security.
Mixner also believes that the US should torture people in the interests of entertainment. He’s said that it would still be justifiable if it didn’t work. It’s merely that he and others find the act of doing so entertaining.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Mixner also believes that the US should torture people in the interests of entertainment.
Tyro believes that Jews are subhuman and should be killed.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
I only glanced over this thread so I apologize if this is redundant.
I think Matt was a bit inartful, but I agree that broadly we should have the following priorities (status in parentheses):
(1) Stop the torture (hopefully done);
(2) Build as complete a public record of what we did as possible and hopefully achieve broad public support for the proposition that what we did was wrong (in progress, with some notable steps forward recently);
(3) Only then, prosecute the most culpable actors for their crimes (no action as yet).
I don’t want us to stop after just (1) and (2), and I am reasonably hopeful we will get to (3) once we have accomplished (2). But the bottomline is that accomplishing (1) and (2) are more important than (3), and so in my view it is proper to prioritize those goals.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Am I the only one who finds it absurd that we are even discussing the TV show “24?” It is a work of fiction that bears no relevance to the real world. That it is popular means nothing. It’s popularity is not necessarily an endorsement of anything. Consider the widely popular “Nightmare on Elm Street” movies. Are those who enjoyed the movies endorsing the activities of Freddie Kruger? Certainly not. Entertainment does not require the viewer to endorse the political views of the lead character. If it did, the American public has a lot to explain for.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Am I the only one who finds it absurd that we are even discussing the TV show “24?”
I’m pretty sure there is only one person here who DOESN’T find this argument absurd–and I have some doubts about even that person.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Yglesias seems to be unusually dense today. The situations in East Europe and the US are not even remotely comparable.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
The TV show “Dexter” clearly portrayed to great popular appeal and acceptance the value to American society of psychopaths who peel peoples’ faces off with scalpels.
I think the connection is obvious.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Mixner,
FYI, Jack Bauer doesn’t actually exist.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Although I concede that if Dexter skins a Manhattan Hedge Fund Manager alive, the ratings will probably go through the roof.
I myself dream of a Phil Gramm cameo.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
1) Stop the torture (hopefully done);
“Hopefully done” = DTM has no idea whether the torture has been stopped, let alone whether Obama will order torture at some point in the future in response to a terrorist threat or other contingency. If he agrees with Atul Gawande that solitary confinement is torture, then not only has torture not been stopped, it is continuing daily on a massive scale.
(2) Build as complete a public record of what we did as possible and hopefully achieve broad public support for the proposition that what we did was wrong (in progress, with some notable steps forward recently);
Huh? What notable steps forward would those be?
(3) Only then, prosecute the most culpable actors for their crimes (no action as yet).
Why only “the most culpable?” Why should the men who actually inflicted the torture, and the men who ordered the torture in accordance with the OLC memos, not also be prosecuted? Why are you excusing Obama for turning a blind eye to these “crimes?”
As Dalia Lithwick put it:
April 18th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
The TV show “Dexter” clearly portrayed to great popular appeal and acceptance the value to American society of psychopaths who peel peoples’ faces off with scalpels.
Unlike Jack Bauer, Dexter is hardly portrayed as a hero. To the extent that his killings are portrayed in a positive light, it is only because he kills his victims to prevent them from murdering innocent people, or as punishment when they escape prosecution by the criminal justice system. Dexter is a populist vigilante rather than a serial killer in the traditional sense.
Again, if you seriously think television audiences would accept a show that portrayed in a positive light a character who routinely molested children or raped women or murdered innocent people, you are deluded. The fact that Jack Bauer is not merely accepted but celebrated as a hero illustrates that people view torture in a fundamentally different way than they view violent crimes like murder and rape and child molestation.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Solitary confinement is to be distinguished from how “charles” has spent his entire Saturday, repeating the same old bullshit in a little room.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
And I spent the day as I always do: A few hours of sleep, a quick bite to eat, then 20 hours of obsessive monitoring of this blog looking for new posts by Mixner.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Oh, the irony of #73. It’s so easy to make a gimp out of a predictable troll.
April 18th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Your last ‘graf may be the best I’ve read on this subject. There is so much more to do than handwringing. How do we do this>
April 18th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
The citizens of Salem were strongly in favor of burning witches at the stake. Their approval is proof positive that burning witches at the stake is a good idea. Furthermore, the majority opinion of the citizens of that town that they were witches has also convinced me that the accused were, literally, the handmaidens of satan.
The fact that House was the #7 rated show on TV last year while 24 was only #16 proves that people are more than twice as likely to want their doctors to be deceitful drug addicts than they are to want government agents to torture suspects.
The fact that people commenting on this thread are discussing the evils of torture and not the evils of other dubious human endeavors proves that their concerns about torture are invalid due to a failure to exhaust all opportunities for contextualization.
People love the mafia. Just look at The Sopranos and The Godfather. Prosecution of racketeering flies in the face of the revealed preferences of the public in favor of organized crime.
Cheney’s “1% doctrine” is a good idea. Treating improbabilities as certainties has no downsides. I forget this fact only when talking about global warming when I take the opposite view.
The movie Galaxy Quest proves that fiction actually is reality. All that science-y stuff on the TV show turns out to actually have worked. How else could the Thermians have replicated the starship Protector in such detail?
April 19th, 2009 at 12:16 am
Man, Joe Is A Fucking Loser Says:
I went and watched Lord of the Rings and the Red Sox after my 8:03 comment. Mixner, baby, you’re shooting at the mirrors because you don’t know which figure is me.
Ha ha.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:18 am
I have no idea why you think the fictional nature of 24 is relevant to the point.
You also have no idea why asking people if they can ever imagine a situation in which torture would be “justified” isn’t a good indicator of their opinion about actual, real-world torture by our government, and hence, can’t explain why the polls that ask about what people actually want done are so heavily tilted against you.
You have a reality problem, chuckles.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Really, Chuckles? Really?
Hey, can anybody think of any notable steps that have recently been taken to build a public record about the torture committed under George Bush, and build broad public support for the idea that it was wrong?
Notable steps – I’m looking for notable steps that happened recently about publicizing torture practices. Little help?
April 19th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Holy shit. The 24 argument is stupid even by Mixner standards. According to Nielsen, the last episode of 24 drew a little under 11 million viewers. That means that there were about 295 million Americans who didn’t watch 24. So even if you assumed that every single 24 viewer was a rabid torture supporter, it’s no reason to believe that it represents the views of the country at large.
April 19th, 2009 at 4:38 am
No, D, Jack Bauer tortures people in the interests of national security.
Hey, much like the Nazis and the KGB.
That’s kind of like saying you raped a group of 7-year-olds but for a really good cause.
April 19th, 2009 at 4:48 am
Torture works because fictional TV shows produced by torture advocates prove it works.
Torture works because I have a hypothetical that has never occurred in the real world that says it works.
Torture works because a certain percentage of Americans says it can be justified in certain instances.
Oh, and the US doesn’t torture.
I think that sums it up.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I’m not going to look up the object of your fetish, but, absolutely, solitary confinement can be a form of torture. However, this being the real world, full of imperfect laws and judges and evidence and hearings and standards, there’s not any computer program that can sort this all out perfectly, and I’m not interested in any discussion that plays stupid games about ‘well one time in 7th grade I was put in detention for 1 hour so that was torture how come the Red Cross didn’t bomb my school’.
All sorts of acts can be done in one context and then become something different in another context. I take a shower every day. Voluntarily. Sometimes they’re long showers. However, if I were forcibly strapped down and placed under a running shower, continuously, for a year, or even a month, that might be torture. Even if it didn’t kill me, or somebody started spouting some irrelevant bullshit about how they once went through that for some exotic military training.
This is all trivial, the occupations of people taking beginning philosophy classes, and, of course, Bush Jr. administration officials, who wished to be able to emulate the North Korean and Soviet and Chinese modern totalitarian enhanced interrogators they admire without being too much like the brutish torturers of Guatemala or Burma.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:30 am
El Cid,
Your pitiful attempt at contextualization only reveals your hypocrisy! What about the tsunami victims? Your callous disregard for their plight proves that your comment at #83 is a non-sequiter.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
This is a good point. Perhaps I could get an aspiring conservative federal judge to write me a memo saying that if hundreds of thousands of people were drowned by a recent Indonesian tsunami, a much lower and controlled application of water on a restrained prisoner over an extended period of time would not in any way count as a tsunami, although it might be okay to tell the detainee that he or she is going to be subjected to a simulated tsunami, but as long as he or she is not subjected to an actual tsunami, there is no real problem.
April 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
If we are overthrowing ourt government this argument makes sense, but if we retain it, then we must show that in fact we are a nation of laws and not men. As for sending people to jail, politicians and demagogues can ONLY order peopns to do illegal acts, we must make it possible for peons to say no, and that can only be accomplished by sending those who do not say no to jail. Otherwise saying no is all risk versus the comfort of going along. We must add both risk to going along, and risk (ie. fear of exposure) to those ordering illegal acts so that those they are ordering may, to save their own skins from punishment, out the demagogues instead.
April 19th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I disagree, Matt. There needs to be at least a handful of serious investigations and prosecutions if we are to deter this kind of behavior again. Your Eastern Europe example is weak in several areas. One, it’s hard to throw a communist revolution. They don’t happen very often, so it’s not merely the lack of punishment that deters people from overthrowing the government and installing themselves as communist dictators. On the other hand, lawbreaking can and is done relatively easily by small groups of people if those people don’t believe they’ll be caught and punished.
Obama’s choice, though, is as difficult as you suggest. If he has to choose between punishing torturers and implementing universal healthcare – if it is really a this-or-that choice – it’s hard to argue against healthcare, you know? But I do think he can do both. Failure is an orphan, and failed Bush-era bureaucrats are political orphans. They have no protection now. They are weak and vulnerable, and we should prosecute them and throw them in jail for the rest of their pathetic lives.
April 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
You give the example of the formerly Soviet occupied European countries that didn’t have investigations of atrocities committed by communist leaders in their countries. The example we should be looking at, though, is Bill Clinton’s stopping the Iran/Contra investigations. I believe that the refusal to fully investigate those illegalities led directly to the even worse illegalities of the Bush administration.
If we let these people go again, who knows what atrocities they’ll come up with the next time they grab power?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
April 19th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
If he has to choose between punishing torturers and implementing universal healthcare – if it is really a this-or-that choice – it’s hard to argue against healthcare, you know? But I do think he can do both. Failure is an orphan, and failed Bush-era bureaucrats are political orphans. They have no protection now. They are weak and vulnerable, and we should prosecute them and throw them in jail for the rest of their pathetic lives.
I agree, but from a political perspective this is really a matter of timing. Obama’s ability to move his domestic agenda through Congress is likely at its highest near the beginning of his term. Meanwhile, Bush Administration officials are only going to become more and more “orphaned” over time, and meanwhile the ongoing revelations of the facts of their crimes are also likely to gradually increase public support for prosecutions over time. So it would make ample sense–again, from a purely political perspective–for Obama to frontload his domestic agenda and backload things like war crimes prosecutions.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Now that makes sense.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:17 am
[...] him it was OK, this is called the Nuremberg Defense, which failed at Nuremberg and which is being discussed right now a propos Obama’s Department of Justice. I went to public high school, graduated STD [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 6:42 am
[...] him it was OK, this is called the Nuremberg Defense, which failed at Nuremberg and which is being discussed right now a propos Obama’s Department of Justice. I went to public high school, graduated STD [...]
April 20th, 2009 at 9:49 am
So it would make ample sense–again, from a purely political perspective–for Obama to frontload his domestic agenda and backload things like war crimes prosecutions.
The exception to this is the actual ending of the torture program, which could not wait, without Obama himself becoming implicated and thereby making it impossible for justice to ever be done against the officials who put it together.
Notably, that act was taken on his first week in office.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
[...] The Center for American Progress’s Matthew Yglesias is okay with this position, declaring that accountability for torture is less important than building political consensus. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick, Empire Burlesque’s Chris Floyd, and Bruce Fein make the case [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 2:42 pm
[...] punishment for the perpetrators of Bush-era war crimes is less important than establishing some form of political consensus that torture is wrong for the future. A decision to kind of wave hands and say “well, it was [...]
April 21st, 2009 at 8:17 pm
[...] punishment for the perpetrators of Bush-era war crimes is less important than establishing some form of political consensus that torture is wrong for the future. A decision to kind of wave hands and say “well, it was a [...]
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:16 am
[...] heal. It may even make more sense, in terms of building a lasting anti-torture consensus, to have less accountability rather than more. But this process requires clarity, not endless caveats. How, for example, does Obama’s [...]