Torturing The Truth
This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.
"I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't."
That's what President Bush told Katie Couric yesterday.
That was a very odd thing to say on the very day his Pentagon repudiated interrogation "techniques" it had been using and embraced international standards for humane treatment of all detainees in military custody. These standards, by the way, will still not apply to detainees in CIA custody who can still be subjected to "techniques" — translation: torture.
The president also told Ms. Couric that one of the things he felt badly about from his tenure was Abu Ghraib. Now Abu Ghraib was where torture was photographed and then shown to the world. Similar torture was carried out, we learned, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
But, "I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't."
What is being tortured here is the truth.
The president's statement here is beyond doublespeak and above spin. It's untrue, it's egregious. The Pentagon's backhanded, long-delayed and uncourageous acknowledgment that torture was used also repudiated what the president has been telling citizens for years. We've been lied to and we are still being lied to. By the president.
Now, foes of President Bush are indignant that he can "get away with it." They blame a biased press, a manipulative regime and, I suppose, an electorate they see as ignorant.
The president's defenders also blame a biased press. They split hairs about what torture is — sleep deprivation is OK, but jumper cables aren't. They also argue that torture may be justified in some cases, though that is not really what the president himself has asserted.
I'm guessing that one reason that the president "gets away with it" is that many people do what the president's formal defenders do: make strong arguments themselves even though the president doesn't. If a voter sees a rationale for, say, "interrogation techniques," even though the president has never stated it, and in fact speaks dishonestly about it, that voter may still give the president the benefit of the doubt.
In truth, many people pragmatically and ethically believe that what anyone would call torture may be permissible if it has a certainty of preventing other loss of innocent life. This is an ancient, ongoing debate. It is not immoral to come out on the tough side. But the international community, through vehicles such as the Geneva Conventions, has long been on the other side.
The president has danced all around this. We do what's necessary, he says, but we don't torture. Right.
I can't see what the downside would be of a simple honest declaration now that the Pentagon is formally changing its policy. Something like: "Yes, in the wake of 9/11, military and intelligence agencies trying to protect our country, interrogated terrorists using methods that can only be called torture. We felt this was necessary to prevent the loss of innocent life, perhaps on a massive scale. This did involve a compromise with international standards and American values and we paid dearly for that. We are changing that policy, which we once felt was justified. But we reserve the right to do what is necessary to protect human life and certain U.S. agencies will not be covered by the new Pentagon policies."
I may not agree with that — but it is honest.
The administration, of course, is in the midst of yet again repackaging its entire justification for the war on terror and the war on Iraq. By invoking Hitler, Stalin and Nazism, they are trying to rev up their conservative base and somehow discredit the Democrats by implying they aren't worthy of taking on Adolf bin Laden.
This is a fool's errand. Voters already have a very modest opinion of the Democrats' national security credentials, and that will not change in this election cycle. Most voters also have settled views on the threat of Islamist terrorism.
What is unsettled for voters is their view of the president's and the administration's honesty and competence in combating what it calls the "great battle of the 21st century."
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. "I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't."
That's what President Bush told Katie Couric yesterday.
That was a very odd thing to say on the very day his Pentagon repudiated interrogation "techniques" it had been using and embraced international standards for humane treatment of all detainees in military custody. These standards, by the way, will still not apply to detainees in CIA custody who can still be subjected to "techniques" — translation: torture.
The president also told Ms. Couric that one of the things he felt badly about from his tenure was Abu Ghraib. Now Abu Ghraib was where torture was photographed and then shown to the world. Similar torture was carried out, we learned, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
But, "I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't."
What is being tortured here is the truth.
The president's statement here is beyond doublespeak and above spin. It's untrue, it's egregious. The Pentagon's backhanded, long-delayed and uncourageous acknowledgment that torture was used also repudiated what the president has been telling citizens for years. We've been lied to and we are still being lied to. By the president.
Now, foes of President Bush are indignant that he can "get away with it." They blame a biased press, a manipulative regime and, I suppose, an electorate they see as ignorant.
The president's defenders also blame a biased press. They split hairs about what torture is — sleep deprivation is OK, but jumper cables aren't. They also argue that torture may be justified in some cases, though that is not really what the president himself has asserted.
I'm guessing that one reason that the president "gets away with it" is that many people do what the president's formal defenders do: make strong arguments themselves even though the president doesn't. If a voter sees a rationale for, say, "interrogation techniques," even though the president has never stated it, and in fact speaks dishonestly about it, that voter may still give the president the benefit of the doubt.
In truth, many people pragmatically and ethically believe that what anyone would call torture may be permissible if it has a certainty of preventing other loss of innocent life. This is an ancient, ongoing debate. It is not immoral to come out on the tough side. But the international community, through vehicles such as the Geneva Conventions, has long been on the other side.
The president has danced all around this. We do what's necessary, he says, but we don't torture. Right.
I can't see what the downside would be of a simple honest declaration now that the Pentagon is formally changing its policy. Something like: "Yes, in the wake of 9/11, military and intelligence agencies trying to protect our country, interrogated terrorists using methods that can only be called torture. We felt this was necessary to prevent the loss of innocent life, perhaps on a massive scale. This did involve a compromise with international standards and American values and we paid dearly for that. We are changing that policy, which we once felt was justified. But we reserve the right to do what is necessary to protect human life and certain U.S. agencies will not be covered by the new Pentagon policies."
I may not agree with that — but it is honest.
The administration, of course, is in the midst of yet again repackaging its entire justification for the war on terror and the war on Iraq. By invoking Hitler, Stalin and Nazism, they are trying to rev up their conservative base and somehow discredit the Democrats by implying they aren't worthy of taking on Adolf bin Laden.
This is a fool's errand. Voters already have a very modest opinion of the Democrats' national security credentials, and that will not change in this election cycle. Most voters also have settled views on the threat of Islamist terrorism.
What is unsettled for voters is their view of the president's and the administration's honesty and competence in combating what it calls the "great battle of the 21st century."
Dick Meyer, a veteran political and investigative producer for CBS News, is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington, D.C.
E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to
Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.
By Dick Meyer
I knew it. Your a member of the Federalist Society?
They are experts at adhominum attacks and avoiding the issues. Tell me you are not a member of that group? I am hoping for a bare knuckles debate and those characters have zero skill sets when it comes to arguing issues. I pray they did not get you to join my friend. I would never clean windows for those guys.
Lets start with a simple question? Did Bush steal the Constitution or did Osama bin Ladin? Actually this is a trick question because it was my own Congressman and Rules Committe Chairman David Dreier who gave Ashcroft a "special" ruling that moved the Patriot Act right out of committee in the middle of the night, let Ashcroft add his own goodies into this bill, and brought it to the floor without anyone even reading the contents thereof and voting on it. Do not feel bad though because that also happened in Canada and Britain all within the same week. No DEBATE AT ALL.
The ball is your court. I will give you one more advantage. I also live in a College town and deal with more MD's, B.A.s, Phd's types than I can count. So your "degree" did not impress right from the beginning.
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan
I know I may have an advantage because I live and grew up in the old congressional district of Richard Milhouse Nixon none-the-less I figure that with your multiple master degrees, this debate your calling for, should be an even match.
Lets avoid our various proclivities, voting records, gambling etc. and get back on track. I didn't figure you would cut and run so quickly.
If you win I will brighten your world up by cleaning all the windows in your house for free at no cost? If I win you have to come to a Claremont Town Hall meeting and see Democracy in action.
Oh Ronnie, oh Ronnie won't you come out to debate?
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan
The Constitution Proceeds My Being - My Response to Rove and RonnieHM
I come from Nixon's old congressional district and as God is my Fuhrer believe that:
We are in a state of constitutional crisis. For Rumsfeld to lobby on intelligence reform and now have military acts off the books means that
the "linchpin" of the constitution, the taxing and spending powers of Congress, of raising standing armies, has now been violated. My Congressman David Dreier now has no way to effect neither my Liberty nor my Republic.
Our constitution was specifically designed to avoid this combination of the President's office with the Defense Department; that the King shall
not have his own standing army to send willy-nilly to wherever he thinks he has the pleasure too. The appointment of a sitting General to an executive position - the CIA - only consolidates this dangerous process that is under play.
The basis for this power grab, the claim of inherent power of the president, has already been settled under Nixon's attempt during the
so-called Vietnam War. As Nixon%u2019s assistant attorney general Rehnquist made the argument of inherent power to wiretap the White Panther Party without a warrant %u2013 during a war. This power, which was claimed to be held, under the President%u2019s Oath of Office, was rejected by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision against suspending all or parts of the Constitution.
The second year goes by and the second hermit says: "The horse was GRAY."
The third year goes by and the third hermit says: "If you two don't quit your bickerin'
I'm moving!"
his impeachment. This is in spite of a average of 6 bombings a day, 86 killed policemen, and a record 33,604 thousand injuries between the
fall of 1969 and spring of 1970 by our own citizens protesting over the illegal invasion of Cambodia. Not to mention the response and statistics to the the duration of the Vietnam war.
That is why I can never believe the neo-cons or Alitos et al., claims to absolute presidential power as Commander-and-Chief even during war.
Unfortunately, old Rehnquist conveniently ignored this when he reviewed his history of the power of the President during war. He brings up WWI
and WWII in this review. But, for some reason, he completely skips how his %u201Cinherent%u201D argument on presidential power was slapped down by the
Supreme Court during the undeclared, illegal and immoral so-called Vietnam War.
his impeachment. This is in spite of a average of 6 bombings a day, 86 killed policemen, and a record 33,604 thousand injuries between the
fall of 1969 and spring of 1970 by our own citizens protesting over the illegal invasion of Cambodia. Not to mention the response and statistics to the the duration of the Vietnam war.
That is why I can never believe the neo-cons or Alitos et al., claims to absolute presidential power as Commander-and-Chief even during war.
Unfortunately, old Rehnquist conveniently ignored this when he reviewed his history of the power of the President during war. He brings up WWI
and WWII in this review. But, for some reason, he completely skips how his %u201Cinherent%u201D argument on presidential power was slapped down by the
Supreme Court during the undeclared, illegal and immoral so-called Vietnam War.
survive in a difficult world and that we should defer to a sole sovereign power since 9/11. In all we have become weaker since taking on this post
9/11 repeat of Rehnquist's "in terrorem" position. (I would like to read his memo on the subject of presidential power and the invasion of Cambodia but alas that memo has disappeared, nowhere to be found on the internet. The persuasive force of his ideas no longer count I can only suppose). I only fear that our new Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito will take what was a tragedy we survived and turn a repeated claim of 17th century inherent power into a farce that destroys the sheet anchor
of our Republic - our precious Constitution %u2013 along with the Bill of Rights.
I would rather throw Bush overboard than our Constitutional Rights. The Sovereign People have thrown Lieberman overboard and now hold an even
keel. This is just the beginning!
I am Citizen Michael John Keenan.
Rehnquists memo is now posted at the DOD.