Blogs and Stories
Release the Memos
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP Photo
If he chooses not to release three secret torture memos Thursday, Barack Obama will not only let his down his allies but claim the Bush administration’s atrocities as his own.
It’s no state secret that President Obama has deeply disappointed those supporters who believed his pledges to reverse the Bush administration’s lawlessness when it came to national-security-related matters. As president, he’s sung quite a different tune. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald collects a number of issues from FISA to rendition to prisoner’s rights in Afghanistan in which, in some cases, it’s actually possible to use the phrase “worse than Bush” regarding Obama without apparent hyperbole. The critics: from Sen. Russ Feingold to legal commentator Jonathan Turley to Keith Olbermann to the American Civil Liberties Union to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are all people, whom, it fair to say, expected to find themselves in Obama’s corner for the big fights of his administration, rather than siding with those who accuse the president of saying one thing to get elected and doing another as president. (The American Prospect issues an overall report card here.)
Obama and company are sure to make errors in calculating the trade-offs in this extremely difficult and sensitive area. But let them at least make their own mistakes, rather than suffer for those of Bush and company.
And yet to imply that this is just another predictable case of a president deciding that it’s fun, after all, to wield a whole set of powers he previously did not believe in—a tradition that goes back more than 200 years to President Thomas Jefferson's 1803 purchase of Louisiana (and much of what is now the Western United States)—would be to misread the situation. Obama is juggling many problems and constituencies simultaneously. On the one hand, he is bound by his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and unlike George W. Bush, was supported for office by people who take that charge seriously. On the other hand, he is responsible for the nation’s defense and needs the active cooperation of its intelligence agencies to do so.
Faced with what Politico is calling an attack from the “legal left,” the president faces a court deadline, Thursday, imposed in a lawsuit by the ACLU requesting the release of three so-far secret 2005 memos issued by Steven Bradbury, who was the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under George Bush. When the department released an earlier set of memos, even hardened Bush-haters like yours truly found themselves shocked at the callous regard for decency, due process, and sound constitutional reasoning they exhibited. In those memos, some of which were co-authored by John Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, the administration claimed the right to use the military to seize alleged terrorists in their homes without a warrant, thereby defenestrating the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the military from carrying out law-enforcement operations at home. The First Amendment right of free speech was also to be done away with, and the president was advised that he was free to ignore legal treaties with other nations, despite their status as the law of the land. (Just five days before leaving office, the Bush-appointed lawyers decided that these memos no longer reflected the views of the Justice Department; others had been previously withdrawn.)
And yet these may not have been not the worst of it. According to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting, the as-yet unreleased memos include the Bush administration’s “approval for a technique in which a prisoner's head could be struck against a wall as long as the head was being held and the force of the blow was controlled by the interrogator, according to people familiar with the memos. Another approved tactic was waterboarding, or simulated drowning.”
The debate within the administration has Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, together with of Attorney General Eric Holder and White House Counsel Greg Craig, arguing for the release. Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan is fighting against disclosure on behalf of the CIA and was apparently joined by his boss, Leon Panetta, who is said to have switched sides. They argue that airing the agency’s dirty laundry would demoralize its employees, hurt its ability to get other intelligence agencies to work with it, would undermine the agency's credibility with foreign intelligence services, and give al Qaeda a propaganda victory.
The politics are obviously messy and difficult to predict. I was in a green room with Pat Buchanan not long ago when he was arguing against the closing of Gitmo. He promised the first time one of these guys attacked us, Obama would be held responsible for having gone soft when he needed to be tough. And there’s no question that the CIA has the ability to undermine a president’s foreign policy should they decide he’s not on their side. (In fact, if what Sy Hersh recently told NPR’s Terry Gross is correct, there are people in the intelligence apparatus who have been placed there by Dick Cheney for the express purpose of carrying out his foreign policy, rather than Barack Obama’s.)
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Why Democrats Are Smiling
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
The Speech of His Life—Again
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
How E.L. Doctorow Does It
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
obsession |%u0259b%u02C8se sh %u0259n|
noun
the state of being obsessed with someone or something : she cared for him with a devotion bordering on obsession.
%u2022 an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind : he was in the grip of an obsession he was powerless to resist
This user is no longer registered.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Mr. Obama should not release anything that might compromise agents in the field or the effectiveness of ongoing intelligence operations.
And it would be a lot better if the extremists let this one go. The last thing this country needs right this minute (heard about North Korea, have you? Iran? Nuclear missles?) is a nasty, political fight over the CIA.
It may be a dirty business, spying, but somebody has got to do it.
I do not understand why anyone would want the secret documents released as that would compromise our ability to keep America safe.Surely no one hates Bush that much.I do not like President Bush BUT you have to give him one thing, and that is HE DID KEEP US SAFE.
The bleats of this tiresome left-wing loser are really getting to be too much. When Obama occupied the White House he came face to face with reality for maybe the first time in his life. The state must have its secrets. Whatever his differences with Bush, Obama was smart enough to get that. The ACLU and its running dogs and useful idiots are disappointed? I'm wiping away the tears. While I'm wringing out my hankie, isn't Alter carrying too much of the JournoList today's-message load these days? People are going to start to wonder.
While I would NEVER vote for President Bush again, I think that President Obama will find that he, himself , will keep a lot of Bush's policies in place.Anyone one of you out there would waterboard a person if he had info. on how your child could be saved.President Bush DID save a lot of Americans by waterboarding.
This user is no longer registered.
If Obama doesn't release the memos then he will be proven to be nothing but a big fraud (again).
If President Obama does not release the secret documents he will prove himself to be a wiser president than campaigner.
You right wingers really are afraid of your own shadow aren't you? Personally I would face down a whole army of these whacko evil lawless zealots rather than become one myself.
This had better be a joke. Obama does a disservice to his country and the 200 years of its existence by not releasing documents pertaining to the illegal and immoral act of torture by elected officials.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Of course Barack O'Bilderberg isn't going to release the most important details of the memos. Just as he isn't going to have Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the rest of the war criminals investigated or indicted, as he's already made it plain he plans on letting them get away with their crimes against humanity and live out the rest of their lives as free men in the lap of luxury.
What did anyone realistically expect? That this bourgeois Uncle Tom neo-con was going to do anything to upset the applecart of his puppetmasters in the ruling class? That he would actually CHANGE anything of substance? Only if one is naive and was asleep for the last two years, or so desperate for "anybody but Bush" that they would vote for a bag of leaves as long as it had the Democrats' donkey symbol on it. Vote for O'Cain, vote for McBama, either way you would have ended up with a neo-con stooge as president. (Same with Hillary, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, Romney etc.). This way the elite is happy and has the benefit of having an election (conferring an albiet phony sense of legitimacy to the succession process) without the risk that the voters might choose somebody that derail their gravy train.
Typo: A better way to put the last sentence there would be "This way the elite is happy and has the benefit of having an election (conferring an [albiet phony] sense of legitimacy to the succession process) without the risk that the voters might choose somebody that would derail their gravy train."
What? Daily Beast is filtering comments now? WTF?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
I think we ALL should reconsider our definition of torture.Surely we NEED to do what it takes to keep us and our loved ones' safe--personally I would do torture to keep my loved one's safe--HOW ABOUT YOU?????
I think as long as we are winning we get to make the rules :).
If you want to get tortured, try sending our government a simple fax. Pages get lost, people don't believe you, when you are send it the first time, then someone will phone back at the same time, telling you they are missing a page when you are trying to send it a second time.
You can see how the Madoff thing happened. People just got disheartened and gave up. The sad thing is we are all supposed to be on the same side.
And of course if this economic crisis is not a danger to national security, then maybe the problem really is, how we define national security.
Then go back to the discussion of whether torturing in secret, really does enhance national security, or whether it actually hinders it.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
There were a few key words/letters in Mr. Alterman's article: A.C.L.U., Berkeley, and N.P.R.. If we put the country in their hands, we'd all be on a prayer rug facing mecca.
If there's one thing we should all know about Obama by now is that he does things at his own pace. Never rushed and always deliberate. He's usually at least 2 steps ahead of his detractors. I'm sure he already knows what he's going to do and is biding his time for good reason. In the end I do expect that he will fight for justice. It's not just Americans who have the right to freedom, it's all people as all were created by God whether some acknowledge it or not. Our President knows this.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
I don't mean to change the subject, I know I sometimes underestimate Obama, I think that is why he grows on you, I think we are very lucky to have him.
When Obama mentioned to his beautiful children that water dogs were taught to herd fish, I thought he was kidding, and with the look one of the girls' gave I don't think she believed it either. So I did a search.
Believe it or not, it is true.
[Portuguese Water Dog - were taught to herd fish into fishermen's nets, to retrieve lost tackle or broken nets, and to act as courier from ship to ship] http://a.tearn.com/2009/03/portuguese-water-dog-were-taught-to.html.
And you know why it is unbelievable, because it unbelievable, but it is still true. Like so many things in life are and which life so exciting.
And we should focus on the positive, to a degree, if we assume negative things, often people become defensive. I know this, because I went through an ordeal with around 20 government workers, and different times, because something wasn't getting processed, and they assumed I was lying, when it turned out I was right.
Now look at Madoff, people believed him, partly I believe because he was a white male, and he was the ex chairman of Nasdaq, and now we know he is, to be kindly, a fraudster.
So it is hard to know what to believe, and I don't envy today's young people, what they are facing is even more unbelievable than a dog being trained to herd fish.
And what we leave behind, to these young people, and the unborn, will be our legacy. At the end nothing else really matters, after we die. Cause we don't take it with us, we leave it behind.
Obama is a person who apparently makes a couple of million dollars in a bad year. He could live a great life, without the hassle of being president, and possibly getting assassinated.
It is sort of like Martin Luther King Jr., you sort of realized he was for real, because he knew he was going to get assassinated, and continued with his campaign to make a better world for the younger people and the unborn.
That is different than sounding like a televangelist, and then allowing powerful interest groups deregulate all kinds of things which now we know does lead to disaster, we knew that all along it was going to lead to disaster.
The difference is Obama appears to care about the public good and not just special interest groups.
Hopefully I am right, there is always a chance I am wrong and we are all being fooled. But I really do think he is for real.
Madoff acting so secretly should have been a clue he was hiding something.
Assuming I am right, if Obama does too much too quick he might get assassinated.
Everybody knows that.
Hopefully we won't suffer such a great loss. And that is what the real issue is.
Obama's life is on the line. It is easy for us to criticize. We can only imagine what he is up against.
People who torture, will murder.
That doesn't mean everyone is like that.
It just means that people who get ahead, don't always get ahead by writing great books like Obama appears to have done.
Some get ahead by kicking others down, as they are trying to get up, like many bankers appear to have done.
I believe that President Obama's main goal to radicalize America, and spread the wealth around, which is exactly what he is now doing.Pay attention to what he has SAID he WOULD DO and WHAT HE IS DOING.Did you see any legislation he has signed posted on the internet for 5 days before he signed it--as he promised????Where is the transparency he promised, etc, etc.?????The first President Bush said "read my lips, no new taxes", and then raised them. The press crusified him for that, plus I think that was a big factor in his losing the election.The press is no holding President Obama accountable.
Release of the memos would embarrass the CIA? Hmm, didn't that already happen with the phony reports of WMD's in Iraq? They've been messing up for years. No more coverups!
I CAN NOT STAND when "conservatives" like Banjo1 don the John Wayne Cowboy hat and do their their best Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now impression about how the world is an evil place and some men just have to make the "tough" decisions.
I am only speculating, but my guess is that George W, Dick Cheney, et al have never once in their life actually killed or tortured a man with their own hands. They do not have the will or the balls to put the light out of another man's eye.
However, they did have the will, the financial and political resources, and the very very tiny balls to hire underlings, and enlist the poor into their army to carry out criminal acts, and like all men, they should be held accountable for their actions and words.
Release the memo's. Release the Hounds. I don't want to live in a country where privileged rich boys get to live above the law for ANY reason.
Will I really be taken aback by what the contents of these two "secret" memos will reveal? Is anyone really surprised by the torture and misconduct in Guantanamo? Abu Ghraib prison revealed to us the heart of darkness in the Bush Administration, so the rest should be no surprise to anyone.
There is no such thing, and there never can be such a thing, as a "humane" war. But if serious breaches of human rights and of our constitution have taken place even during times of war, they should be investigated, more so when it's those that have sworn to uphold them that are the violators, i.e. the president and his ministers. After all, they set a precedent. Or, is this going to be another case of "...when the president does it it's not illegal" as so famously stated by Nixon?
If this is not handled carefully by the Obama Administration any investigation could turn into a witch hunt, stirring up hatreds in Congress and among constituents, and I believe that would be demoralizing for the nation. It behooves President Obama to step carefully and weigh the consequences of every action in this matter.
I want to underscore one vital point about this controversy that is continuously overlooked and will be undoubtedly distorted today in the event of non-disclosure: these documents are not intelligence documents. They are legal documents and, more specifically, they constitute what can only be described as secret law under which the U.S. was governed during the Bush era. Thus, the question posed by the release of these OLC memos is not whether Obama will release to the public classified intelligence programs. The question is whether he will release to the public the legal doctrines under which the U.S. Government conducted itself regarding interrogation techniques he claims are no longer being used.
These memos were not prepared by the CIA or the Pentagon. To the contrary: they were written by DOJ lawyers -- specifically, OLC chief Steven Bradbury and then-OLC Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. They are not "intelligence reports" from the field. They are, by definition -- by their very nature -- nothing more than decrees about what is and is not legal: i.e., they are pure legal documents that state what the Executive Branch's view of the law is with regard to interrogation tactics. OLC is not an intelligence agency. It is a legal agency. Here (.pdf) is how it defines its own function:
The Office of Legal Counsel exercises the Attorney General's authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to advise the President and executive agencies on questions of law. . . . Our Office is frequently called upon to address issues of central importance to the functioning of the federal Government, and, subject to the President's authority under the Constitution, OLC opinions are controlling on questions of law within the Executive Branch.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/16/olc_memos/
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.