Torture Prosecutions--Let Sleeping Dogs Lie

The Obama administration seems to be of two minds in their recent positions on prosecuting those who have advocated or justified the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques", or "torture", to gain intel critical to the defense of the USA.

On the one hand, Obama has indicated that he will not go after those who put these interrogation methods to use (ie, not prosecuting those "just following orders"), yet on the topic of prosecuting those justifying the use of these tactics, his position has been very opaque. He appeared to be giving the Bush Administration Senior team a pass, but then also indicated that, as a rule of law, the Attorney General would have to make decisions on the legality of their behavior.

And the pundits and lawmakers on both sides have been howling for a solution to this matter that suits their worldview.

So, once again, we are in a messy situation, left over from the previous administration, with Obama, having to act as King Solomon once did, to come up with a satisfactory solution to an impossible situation.

And it is NOT as simple as either side would have you believe. At this point, though, I think pursuing legal remedies to attempt to prosecute those who approved and pushed these questionable tactics would be a mistake. Here's why:

1. History--As we have learned in Washington, even noble ideals get easily corrupted by political ideology and personal agendas. Watergate trials led to Nixon's resignation, and a Ford Pardon, which in the end, spared the nation the demoralizing spectacle of a trial. Democrats didn't like being thwarted in their opportunity to make political hay out of the situation, and took a second swipe at the concept with Iran Contra. Unfortunately, that proved not to be particularly successful, from a political standpoint. It did, however, rile the Republican Party, which in turn, found an even more dubious point on which to Impeach Bill Clinton a few years later.

Each step in the process "one-upped" the political rhetoric between the parties, and has led us to the point where the Democrats seem more intent on political blood and perceived "justice" rather than a true debate on whether the idea of "Torture" is really one that will keep America safe.

2. Political Grandstanding--Building on the prior point's theme, we saw politicians such as Al Gore and Joe Biden use Iran Contra to build their own resumes. Likewise, Lindsey Graham and others tried to use the Impeachment trials to build their own profiles. Unfortunately, in each case, these people did nothing to actually enhance the debate, and in the end, people like Graham looked very hypocritical, calling for Bill Clinton's impeachment over lying to Federal Officials, while calling for Scooter Libby to be freed, since his offense was merely "lying" to Federal Officials. Such political debates have been extremely counterproductive, and in the end, wasted a lot of time and money.

3. National Embarrassment--Did we not suffer enough indignation and embarrassment over the OJ Simpson Trial, or the Impeachment hearings? Do we really need endless debates about whether some lawyer's definition of the word "interrogation" matches the text book definition in Webster's? Or in Patrick Leahy's dictionary?

4. Extenuating Circumstances--Can we really fault the Bush Administration for wanting to keep America safe? I don't advocate torture, and I don't believe that these techniques have kept us safe. But I am NOT ready to say, with the evidence we have seen thusfar, that there is sufficient evidence for a trial of Senior Bush leaders. Remember, after 9/11/01, we didn't really know the nature and extent of the threat al Queda and some of these captured suspects posed. The President is our protector in chief as well as our leader. I think we all would not have been happy if we had been attacked again. In such a position, I can't say I would have acted differently. With the benefit of 8 years of hindsight, it is far too easy to say that the Bush Administration acted outside of the law. But I do think extenuating circumstances mandate that to be prosecuted, there has to be ample evidence that the White House knowingly broke laws, circumvented protections, and did so without legal justification (sound or otherwise). I am sorry, but my bar for this is a little higher than simply pushing the envelope on "enhanced interrogation techniques"

New evidence of flagrant rule-breaking could change my mind. But I don't think we, as a nation, are in a position to have this debate and prosecution in a fair and unbiased fashion. I think Obama knows this is true, and he isn't prepared to go all in on this issue. Even independent prosecutors can end up being Kenneth Starr. Let's face it, if Obama decides to aggressively move ahead with this prosecution, and it turns out that there is evidence that such tactics tangibly stopped attacks, it could lead to a can of worms that blows up in his face. And if you think the media $#!^ storm is tough now, wait until Dick Cheney is sworn in to testify...