Grading on a Curve
By Thoreau
I know very little about Leon Panetta and Dawn Johnsen. There are good commentators out there who think highly of one or both picks (e.g. Greenwald). They may very well be great picks, and if so, that’s great news.
Most of the commentary is focused on their opposition to torture. Again, that is great news. However, I can remember a time when opposition to torture would have been a no-brainer. Now it’s apparently a bold stance. And that is a sad comment on America.
Barack Obama is leading a country where being against torture gets you an automatic B+. That’s a sad statement on us, and even if Obama should prove to be among the greatest of Presidents, I wonder how much can be repaired in a country where opposition to torture is bold. Moreover, as glad as I will be to see torture outlawed (and can one even hope to see torturers incarcerated?) I am sad about grading on this curve.
Despite all that, today Obama gets a B+ for nominating to very senior positions two people who reject torture and Divine Right of Presidents. He can collect the A+ when he’s in office and he follows through on the policies.
In other news, John Yoo is very worried about executive power. So, I’m amending what I wrote in the previous paragraph: If Obama wants the A+, John Yoo has to see the inside of a prison cell. Yeah, I’m vindictive like that. A for ending torture, A+ for locking up John Yoo.
Sound good, joe?
UPDATE: This is getting weird. Jay Rockefeller is concerned about the Panetta choice. OK, Obama must be doing something right, right? But then it turns out that K-Lo likes him. And so do Feith, Perle, and Ledeen.
joe, I’m mighty tempted to submit a grade change form. Damnit, there must be something wrong with this pick if K-Lo, Feith, Perle, and Ledeen approve. What say you?
Comment by Donald Johnson —
January 6, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
I’m not Joe, but sounds fair to me.
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
January 6, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Ditto.
Comment by pmp —
January 6, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
There’s a simple explanation for this: 9/11. I’m convinced that torture doesn’t prevent terrorism, but it’s a plausible hypothesis that it does. For whatever reason, we haven’t had major terrorist attacks since 2001. Hell, we’ve even returned to worries about school shootings/office shooting/mall shootings.
The dirty little secret is that no one can explain exactly why we’ve avoided a successful terrorist attack since ‘01.
People THINK torture works. People think they know this, as a fact. People aren’t very good at thinking.
Even though this wasn’t their intention, the terrorists have stolen our moral compass.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
January 6, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
It is precisely because we are at a point where this is a debate that these appointments are so significant.
Sounds good to me, thoreau.
Panetta alone, the CIA being run by somebody who doesn’t torture, would be a B+. Dawn Johnson at OLC, on the other hand, is a bigger deal. There’s a difference between choosing not to torture and considering it criminal, and to be outraged at the fact that it’s even being discussed as something reasonable people could disagree over.
The OLC lays down the law, literally. They tell the rest of the executive branch what is legal. It is a very big deal that this office will be filled by someone who isn’t just on the right side of the issue, but who doesn’t even think it’s an issue that’s up for debate.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
January 6, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
Hell, we’ve even returned to worries about school shootings/office shooting/mall shootings.
Next stop: shark attacks!
Comment by Thoreau —
January 6, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
This is relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28129
Comment by joe from Lowell —
January 6, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
Feith, Perle, and K-Lo inhabit an alternative universe where there are responsible adults who, when it comes right down to it, would torture terror suspects and invade Iraq, arrayed against dirty fucking hippies who don’t think torture is acceptable and think invading Iraq is a terrible idea.
The idea that there could be a responsible, effective adult who is genuinely opposed to torture and oil wars is outside of their imagination. Leon Panetta is a responsble adult, he’s not a crazy radical, and demonstrated his ability to run a tight ship during his term as CoS.
Therefore, their thinking goes, he can’t really be against torture and oil wars. They are just as certain of this as they are that the American public doesn’t really want to “cut and run” from Iraq.
Combine that with a little denial and a desire to suck up, and it’s like the “Coal Gen” conference my wife went to, where all the coal industry guys spent two days telling each other that Clean Coal was totally not a figment of their imagination.
Comment by IOZ —
January 6, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
Liberal Internationalism = Neoconservativism.
Once you learn all the synonyms in the American political lexicon, you largely cease to be confused.
Comment by Mark —
January 6, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Well, I can’t explain the K-Lo thing at all, but I think I have a pretty good, shockingly non-cynical, explanation for Feith and Perle here, complete with Big Lebowski reference!
Comment by buermann —
January 6, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
I guess in this context “bold” and “unusual” mean about the same thing. Must be hard to find somebody with the resume that has consistently opposed torture without wishy washy contingencies attached.
I’m not sure if the Panetta appointment matters too much. DCIs with no background in the community of spooks have never lasted very long.
Comment by Gary Farber —
January 7, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
Why is no one paying attention to the guy nominated to be Panetta’s boss? Doesn’t genocide rate as worth paying attention to as much as torture?
Comment by Andromeda —
January 10, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
I think your earlier instinct was correct — that anything Jay Rockefeller is concerned about has a better shot at being a good thing. Disclosure: I lobbied him against the Communications Decency Act back when I was a West Virginian, and I was very, very, very underwhelmed at his stance on the issues, his regard for the Constitution, and his powers of reasoning (the latter most especially).