Tortuous

Today for your delectation, I offer the coherent tirade Andrew Sullivan (an ex-conservative who has moved leftward...and leftfield) who writes an open letter to "Dear President Bush" . It's a four page rant in which you could easily ignore pages 2-3, but encapsulates the (still!!?!) current rage against Dubya as exhibited by most of the mainstream media and about 53% of Americans.

The timing of this column is to provide support for the Obama administration's imminent prosecution of CIA officials and interrogators who were doing their job. More on that later.

"In long wars of ideas, moral integrity is essential to winning, and framing the moral contrast between the West and its enemies as starkly as possible is indispensable to victory, as it was in the Second World War and the Cold War."

There is a well established school of thought that suggests that the moral high-ground is THE only place from which a war can be won, justly, thus the comparison to the greatest ideological battles fought in the 20th century against the default evil of Nazism and the still not dead bad-guy of Communism. Here, the moral high ground was aparently not hard to see (although not so obvious to Charles Lindberg, King Edward VIII of England, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg , Obama's friend William Ayers, etc, etc..) The problem I have with the position: "If we don't have the moral high ground, what do we have?" is what use is the moral high ground if you're dead?

Perhaps the reason this position is logically untenable, is that if you look at diaspora of Western society as a whole including old and new immigrant groups, we are constantly told that no one culture or value set is superior to any other (a notion I explicitly deny). So if there is no one set of morals, or absolute values that is the "correct" way to live, then how can you claim any moral high ground if there is no 'ground'?

"I have come to accept that it would be too damaging and polarizing to the American polity to launch legal prosecutions against you, and deeply unfair to solely prosecute those acting on your orders or in your name. President Obama’s decision thus far to avoid such prosecutions is a pragmatic and bipartisan one in a time of war, as is your principled refusal to criticize him publicly in his first months"

Except that Obama IS moving forward on the prosecutions and despite the so called repeated view that "[CIA interrogators] should not be prosecuted if they acted within legal guidelines laid out at the time" it's pretty clear that the Attorney General could not proceed with the prosecution if Obama didn't want him to. And what about the interrogators that did use illegal methods of torture, yet obtained information that prevented a terrorist attack? Will they roll back the security measures and actions taken? If not, then the current administration are morally complicit and have blood on their hands.

"You have also claimed that defending the security of the United States was the paramount requirement of your oath of office. It wasn’t. The oath you took makes a critical distinction: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country. To abandon the Constitution to save the country from jihadist terrorists was not your job."

"It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country." I may be being naive but what is the point of a constitution if there is no country? The charge that the US Government abandoned the Constitution wholeheartedly at multiple levels is a little hard for me to swallow. And somehow, saving the country from jihadists is exactly what I would expect from the elected leader of a country.

"Western freedom begins with the right to protect one’s own body from government power. That’s what habeas corpus means. What was done to Jose Padilla makes a mockery of that freedom and, in fact, establishes a precedent that, if left in place, could destroy it."

Habeas Corpus is protection for an individual citizen against unlawful imprisonment. The Habeas Corpus Act was adopted by the English Parliament in 1679, and was incorporated into the the US Constitution (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.) The full text reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

And even though I Am Not A Constitutional Lawyer (IANACL), I am pretty damn sure that this particular clause refers to the group identified in the first six words of the Constitution

"We the People of the United States."

Which would not include most of the current inmates in Guantanamo.

What follows in page 2 and 3 are descriptions of torture, and of course the mandatory inclusion of Abu Ghraib. What happened at Abu Ghraib was despicable, amoral and criminal. And the conflation of Abu and Gitmo is a convenient mash-up of all things American Evil, and photogenically illustrates the depravity of a superpower gone mad, crushing and torturing poor innocent Iraqi farmers in a repurposed Saddamite prison. The ever so slight problem with this is that Abu Ghraib has NOTHING to do with Gitmo, the torture memos, Rumsfield-Cheny-Bushhitler, the Christian Right and the Crusades. It was an aberration, a disgraceful example of what happens when the chain of command breaks down, and redneck hick reservists are left to rule the roost with no oversight.

Abu Ghraib has as much to do with American ideals and policy as Nazism had to do with the Enlightenment, ie nothing. Linking the lawlessness and the abuse that occurred in one prison in Iraq to the policy in practice of the US Government is disingenuous, but effective since the photos from one can be used as a surrogate for the other. There is a very important debate about State sanctioned torture in democracies, however it is important to distinguish between the actions of those that were carrying out orders, and those that were acting without. It does not diminish the seriousness of the abuse, but to merge these two issues to score an emotional point is a rhetorical flourish that neatly allows you to avoid answering the question: what if it works? What if information gained by the physical abuse of one individual allows you to save the lives of many? Would that change the moral calculation?

To bring the whole thing back to current events, this is currently what is happening on the political scene in the US, with the summary provided by Jennifer Rubin:

"The CIA discovers misconduct, which the CIA inspector general investigates. The information seems to suggest misconduct. They go to DOJ. DOJ tells them to stop and that [Justice] will now look at the issue, gather evidence, and investigate it themselves. They must decide if there is a reasonable belief that they could obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They looked at it. They made a decision and declined [to prosecute]. They go back to the CIA, which can, and in several instances did, review the matters for internal discipline. "

Obama's Attorney General is bringing another department in to investigate the DOJ's handling , and move forward with prosecutions of CIA officials if they possibly can. It is a flagrant waste of time and resources, motivated by partisan intent to punish anyone they can from the hated Bush regime, and in the process make the US and World less secure. Why the the World? Well, as far as I understand, there is cooperation amongst allied intelligence agencies and I know for a fact that Australia relies on it's relationship with the US to supplement their own intelligence needs; how willing do you think international agencies are going to be to help the US if there is the prospect of being prosecuted? Or in other words, why would ASIO give the CIA information gained by dubious means if it meant that sometime down the road, they could be sent to jail for doing their job?

This is not meant as a defense of Guantanamo or torture, but an attempt to show that the Obama administration is pursuing partisan objectives couched in terms of morality that will endanger the World, and there is no end to fellow travelers that are supporting this position.

And besides, exactly how much do you think Obama is doing different from Bush?

"It's now apparent that the biggest sham in American politics is Barack Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo and, more generally, to dismantle the Bush/Cheney approach to detaining accused Terrorists."