Either way, we need to remember this (UPDATED)
By Thoreau
By the end of today, the Obama administration will either release DoJ torture memos from the Bush regime, release heavily redacted versions of the memos, or not release them at all. If they are released, the Reds will pull themselves away from their intense teabagging session (hee!) and scream that these are secret intelligence documents, and Hussein Obama is compromising national security. If they are not released, certain Blues (no, not all of you) will start furiously teabagging Obama and explain that these are secret intelligence documents and you’d have to be a nut…um, maybe some other word is more appropriate in this era of teabagging…a crazy person to want them released. If they are released in heavily redacted form, we’ll probably hear both sides saying it.
Whatever the case, as Greenwald explains, these are not intelligence documents. These are legal documents, and they formed the basis for torture policy for several years. Due to the way the government conducted itself, these were effectively secret laws. Moreover, these documents merely describe techniques that the government claims to have renounced. We have a Need To Know here, and there is nothing in those documents that can help terrorists. So the documents need to be released in unredacted form, so we can find out exactly what sorts of atrocities were being conducted by federal employees. (Hey, Teabaggers: If you’re so outraged over federal spending, surely one of your complaints must be the money spent torturing people, yes?)
Whatever happens today, this point needs to be kept in mind.
UPDATE: Via Angela in the comments, I see that CNN is reporting that the memos will be released. I’m just waiting for confirmation from the ACLU that everything they requested was in fact released without significant redactions.
UPDATE 2: The ACLU has the memos here. I’m going to skim them now, read them in detail later.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 11:29 am
The CIA is going to be seriously cheesed off if Obama releases those memos. That has to weigh heavily on a president’s mind. Those guys could wreck your entire presidency, or worse.
Here’s hoping he’s got the stones.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Hee hee, stones.
Anyway, if the CIA is cheesed, well, criminals are always cheesed when their crimes are revealed.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
Yeah, but most criminals aren’t in an position to spike a presidency. This isn’t some DOT bureaucrats who might not process some invoices fast enough if they get pissed off.
It doesn’t change what the right thing to do is, but it provides some insight into why the president might be reticent to act.
Comment by dhex —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
fingers crossed, halfheartedly.
Comment by CaseyL —
April 16, 2009 @ 12:50 pm
They will be released:
Comment by Thoreau —
April 16, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
CaseyL-
Link?
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
April 16, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
The source seems to be a New York Times blog.
Still no word on possible redactions, though.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
No kidding.
This takes…you know…tea bags.
Comment by Seward —
April 16, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
thoreau,
I would think that if they are going to release them it would be on Friday.
Anyway, even if everything related to this is released I expect it to go nowhere.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Damn, Seward, those goal posts are out in Lot 67 A by now.
Comment by angela —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
released.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/us.torture.documents/index.html
Comment by Thoreau —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
joe, I don’t think that’s much of a moved goalpost. What, you thought I wanted these memos because I enjoy reading about torture? No, I want these memos because they are written documentation of crimes, and once you have written documentation of a crime, signed by key conspirators, you can do ALL SORTS of fun things!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
The funny thing is, I’ve seen “Obama refused to release the torture memos” cited, for weeks now, as evidence of their bad faith, and their “same as the old boss” -ness. Except that refusal never happened.
It’s an interesting intellectual circle. Certain people use their certainty of the “Same as the old boss” phenomenon to draw a conclusion about what actions the administration is going to take, and then use the “fact” they just invented about the administration’s actions as evidence that they are “same as the old boss.”
I wonder if today’s release – a release which has long been called for, and which has long been pointed to as a make-or-break moment by which we can judge the administration’s good faith and intentions – is going to change anyone’s mind.
I kind of doubt it.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Thoreau,
Obviously, the administration is not going to indict Dick Cheney tomorrow. The use of these documents to drive government actions is going to be a long-term phenomenon under any circumstances.
Do you think anybody who wrote with such certainty over the past few weeks about these memos not being released, because they’re just so darn sure of themselves and their “same as the old boss” faux worldliness, are going to hold their tongues and acknowledge that they don’t know what the administration is going to do, or do you think they’re going to keep doing exactly the same Roger Daltry impersonation they’ve been doing for six months, and just change the non-evidence evidence they point to?
I have my own suspicions, but as we’ve learned today, people can be wrong – completely dead wrong – when they make predictions, so it’s best not to make judgments about people based on what you predict they will do.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Right now the server at the ACLU is slow as all hell, because everybody is trying to download these. Once I verify that they’re free of significant redactions, I’ll have some basis from which to consider your points, joe.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
I kind of doubt it
I think you’re probably right. Libertarians seem to be kings of various one drop rules. One drop of tax is slavery, and those who support a tax no different from the slavers of old. Any encroachment on civil liberties is tantamount to a complete encroachment, and people who would draw distinctions are enablers. And so forth. In a world of perfection, Obama is equivalent to Bush, as both are flawed.
Comment by dhex —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
very nice.
not a fun read, obviously.
thoreau: there are redactions here and there, as you might expect. hard to tell from context what they are, but i’m sure others will put some hours into it.
Comment by Sam Hutcheson —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
Of course there are redactions. Intelligence activities and the names of intelligence officers must be safeguarded. The world still is a dangerous place, after all. But it would be significantly dishonest for people certain of the Obama admin’s “same as the old boss” tendencies not to recognize the release of these documents as strong counter-evidence against their claims.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
I will read the memos when the ACLU server is not swamped. I will have to see how significant the redactions are. Obviously we can’t know for sure, but from context we might be able to get some idea of how much is being hid.
And while I did call for “unredacted” memos once in the original post, in most of that post and in my comments since I’ve emphasized that what would get me bent out of shape is “significant” redactions. Leaving out the name of a field agent is fine. Blacking out half the text is going to be a problem.
I’ll look at them when the server is no longer swamped, and then I’ll say something.
Oh, and for Tim: If you go to a farm, you should be able to find yourself a nice bunch of straw that you can set fire to.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Another interesting fact to take into account is that Obama has, indeed, been making soothing noises to people in Washington about these memos – then he goes ahead and releases them.
This guy is CRAFTY. He doesn’t let on a bit. I wouldn’t be surprised to hit refresh one Friday afternoon and read that Citi, BoA, and a whole bunch of other zombie banks had been nationalized all of a sudden.
Count your fingers with this guy. He’ll smile right in your face. A poker player.
Comment by Seward —
April 16, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
joe,
You know, I believe that was the first comment I’ve made anywhere about these memos. So my original goalpost setting re: these memos would be that comment.
I do think it is a damn shame that this will likely be the length and breadth of what happens here.
According to MSNBC this is what the administration has decided to do re: CIA officials: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30249847/
Comment by Sam Hutcheson —
April 16, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Just to be clear, I don’t think you’re being intellectually dishonest, Thoreau. I simply think you’re being impatient while the wheels of justice move slowly along. If there’s any single thing that I’d suggest the world should learn about Obama it’s that he plays a very long game. All of us have been conditioned over at least the last four administrations with the Beltway consensus of “controlling the news cycle.” Obama, and his adminstration of the nation as well as his administrations of justice to war criminals, will move much more slowly than we are accustomed to watching.
Comment by Thoreau —
April 16, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Sam,
Keep in mind that back when one could plausibly fool oneself into thinking that Republicans were friends of libertarians, we were often told that this was a game of chess played on some high dimensional board, and we need to be patient. Somehow everything they were doing was going to add up to a long term agenda for making the state smaller, less intrusive, and less expensive. So when we’re told that another party is playing a long term game, well, we need some evidence before we believe it.
I freely admit that today was very good evidence.
Comment by VikingMoose —
April 16, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
“Damn, Seward, those goal posts are out in Lot 67 A by now.”
even though, Hak, that was indeed the first comment, that is really funny.
“Keep in mind that back when one could plausibly fool oneself into thinking that Republicans were friends of libertarians”
Doktor T: despite people claim that in good faith, this moose simply cannot believe it. Furthering the socially conservative agenda takes away from individual liberty. (or: their definition of “limited gov’t” entails a huge component of “limit the donkey party”)
Instead of throwing shoes, obviously they should have thrown the gourd!!
Comment by Thoreau —
April 16, 2009 @ 6:52 pm
Hence I referred to it as “fool oneself” rather than “persuade oneself.”
Comment by Sam Hutcheson —
April 16, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
So when we’re told that another party is playing a long term game, well, we need some evidence before we believe it.
I understand and respect this. I do not claim to be a libertarian (and I find the “liberaltarian” meme to be too clever by half.) I am neither Republican nor Democrat by nature, though by necessity I’ve voted D in the last few cycles. I am, however, an Obama supporter from the beginning. I am sure, at some point in the future, his administration will break my faith in his conviction, but I am willing to play the long game as well until I see evidence that he is doing so.
We agree that today is a good day, for Obama, for America, and for liberty and justice. We agree as well that insulating the foot soldiers against the repercussions of their crimes is only sufficient if it is a step toward holding the captains and generals accountable.
Comment by VM —
April 16, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
d’oh! I misquoted you when I quoted you correctly!
(since that is a topic that rankles this moose’s rhubarb, I natch did the “ready fire aim” school of posting)
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 16, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
I know we’re supposed to shout “Nuremberg!” every time someone talks about following vs. giving orders, but it has already been established in the public record that the National Security Council Principles – the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the CIA Director, the National Security Advisor – sat in the White House and sent out orders for specific torture practices to be used on specific people.
Foot soldiers are supposed to obey lawful orders, and this White House went so far as to have these memos drawn up and sent out, apparently for the specific purpose of establishing the legality of these orders. You’re a CIA heavy, you’re getting orders sent down from the Oval Office, and they come with legal opinions from the Justice Department. The great bulk of the responsibility here lies with the people giving the orders.
Comment by Walt —
April 17, 2009 @ 12:25 am
Thoreau, please don’t use that stupid “Red” “Blue” terminology. We’re people, not colors. If you stop using it, I promise to start worshiping whatever heathen devil god you libertarians worship. Ayn Rand? Ron Paul? Cthulhu? Whatever it takes.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 17, 2009 @ 8:52 am
Only libertarians believe things and have principles, Walt. Everyone else just blindly obeys whatever high-level party figures say. Didn’t you get that memo?
That’s why the libertarians were able to predict with such clarity that these memos would never see the light of day; because they’re utterly immune from confirmation bias in favor of their preferred political narratives.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 17, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
And I’ve noted other people arguing that while such wasn’t good, the refusal to do such shouldn’t be seen as bad faith. Fortunately, those who tried to defend the administration for the refusal were out-maneuvered…by the administration.
Score one solid for the administration.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 17, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Walt, you don’t want to go back to what libertarians most commonly used before.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
April 18, 2009 @ 12:37 am
And I’ve noted other people arguing that while such wasn’t good, the refusal to do such shouldn’t be seen as bad faith.
And yesterday’s release refutes the argument I’ve seen made, and tells us nothing about the argument you’ve seen made. There is still no reason to believe that the consideration the administration gave to those who argued for keeping these memos secret demonstrated any bad faith, but there certainly is reason to suspect that the people who told us the memos would never be released don’t know what they’re talking about.
I don’t think you get to keep score, Eric. You’ve been seeing things that aren’t there for a long time.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
April 19, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
Joe, if you want to keep score, you’re welcome to quote me whenever I said the memos would never be released.
The argument I’ve always made is that assertions of change are not sufficient, and that proof is necessary to demonstrate good faith. While some folks have had faith that the race will be run, I’ve waited for proof of the steps.
We’ve seen proof of a step, but we’re barely out of the starting blocks.