President Obama's abysmal, legacy-killing response to the CIA torture report
The president could have made sure that torture will never happen again. Instead, he let the perpetrators off the hook.
In a remarkable coincidence, the government of Brazil released its own official torture report last week, only a few days after the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee published its findings on the CIA's use of torture during the Bush era. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff announced the results of the National Truth Commission, which produced a 2,000-page report detailing the torture inflicted by the military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985.
Rousseff broke down in tears at one point, prompting the audience to offer a standing ovation in solidarity. The presentation made for a sharp contrast with President Obama's breezy remarks about American torture during a press conference in August. Obama made no reference to the fact that torture is blatantly illegal, sympathized with its perpetrators, and topped it off with an instantly infamous whitewash of war crimes: "We tortured some folks."
The reason for the divergence is obvious: Rousseff was herself tortured in the 1970s, when she was a Marxist guerrilla fighting the Brazilian dictatorship. Obama is doubtless a tough person. But I do not for a moment believe he would be so infuriatingly blasé about torture if he had been electrocuted, or had his teeth punched out, or had been strung up on the pau de arara.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Of course, it is not necessary to be tortured oneself to realize that torture is a great and monstrous evil (not to mention a complete disaster for intelligence collection). But it does take a degree of moral seriousness and political courage, both of which have been utterly absent from the president on this issue. By letting torturers completely off the hook for grotesque, Idi Amin–esque crimes, Obama has damaged the country and poisoned his legacy.
It didn't start out this way. On the second day of his presidency, he signed executive orders mandating that all interrogations should follow the Army Field Manual, thus effectively banning the Bush torture program. But in early 2009, the administration confirmed it would prosecute no one at the CIA, and in August 2012 Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department would prosecute no one at all.
This was obviously a political decision. Individual CIA officers argued that they were following instructions from the top, and had legal authorization in the form of executive orders and memos from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. It does seem pretty unfair to prosecute the grunts actually carrying out the rapes and beatings, while leaving the legal hacks and their political masters alone.
But if Obama had decided to prosecute the top officials, it would have been a colossal political scandal. The rot went all the way to the top. It would have meant indicting George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and likely dozens of other Bush insiders. It would have been a political scandal without precedent. It would have consumed Obama's presidency.
Obama apparently concluded that it wasn't worth the trouble, and that simply putting it all behind us was the best move. But here's the thing about horrifying atrocities: they tend to be hard to forget.
There was an alternative, though. A blue-ribbon commission with bipartisan opponents of torture (Sens. John McCain and Mark Udall, for starters), granted the authority to hand out pardons to anyone willing to testify, but armed with a special prosecutor to threaten to indict those who did not. This arrangement could have threaded the needle, much as South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission helped the country confront its grim Apartheid past without breaking its new political system.
A war crimes tribunal would have been preferable. But a commission of some sort would have been better than nothing. What the Senate Intelligence Committee did was a mere exercise of its oversight duties. Indeed, we arguably have the worst of all possible worlds: explicit acknowledgment that a conspiracy to conduct illegal torture was carried out at the very highest levels of government, and equally explicit acknowledgment that nobody will be prosecuted for terrible crimes. The message is that the CIA is above the law.
If Obama paid closer attention to Brazil, he might be a tad more concerned. Despite many reforms and hard work, torture is still a major problem in Brazil, because it's very hard to eradicate once it gets going.
If torture becomes established in the American national security apparatus, Obama will be portrayed as a major villain in textbooks of the future. Dick Cheney brought torture into the American fold. But Obama, through inaction and cowardice, allowed it to remain there.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
The real story behind the Stanford Prison Experiment
The Explainer 'Everything you think you know is wrong' about Philip Zimbardo's infamous prison simulation
By Tess Foley-Cox Published
-
Is it safe for refugees to return to Syria?
Talking Point European countries rapidly froze asylum claims after Assad's fall but Syrian refugees may have reason not to rush home
By Richard Windsor, The Week UK Published
-
Quiz of The Week: 14 - 20 December
Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?
By The Week Staff Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published