That longed-for moment when we see either Dick Cheney, or maybe even Dubya himself, in the dock, got a little closer last week, with revelations that a secret CIA counter-terrorism program was concealed from Congress on the orders of VP Cheney.
Obama-appointed CIA head Leon Panetta has, it is claimed, testified to a closed committee of Congress that the program went on from 9/11 onwards, and that Panetta himself only found out about it in June.
What the actual program was is shrouded in mystery — it could be anything from lethal cigar nude bomb wackiness to a plan for the total suspension of the Constitution and the imposition of a dictatorship. David Lindorrf, a specialist in the history of Bush dirty tricks campaigns suggests that it’s most likely an assassination program on a vastly expanded scale — indeed it may be the “big secret” Bob Woodward spoke of in the publicity for his most recent book on the Bush administration.
But more importantly it may be the crucial step the Obama administration needs, if it is of a mind, to appoint a special prosecutor to inquire into the whole conduct of secret ops during the Dubya years, with attorney-general Eric Holder saying that he is “mulling over” the possibility.
The Obama administration has given every indication that it has no desire to appoint a special prosecutor, despite the urging of the liberal left — calculating that the long drawn-out struggle that an investigation and prosecutions would draw away such energy as the administration has, reignite the culture wars, and pose some nasty questions about how much Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid knew about the use of torture by the agency and others.
But if there is going to be a special prosecutor, Obama wants one appointed in an atmosphere in which as many people as possible are clamouring for something to be done; as this correspondent noted during the initial revelations of further torture photos (though not of the photos themselves) and of the true extent of water-torture — euphemistically called water-boarding — Obama’s method is to look as if he has been pushed to a course of action by general clamour, and has to proceed more in sorrow than in anger etc etc, to do what he had already considered doing anyway.
The downside of this is that Obama looks diffident, pushed around. But the upside of it is that he looks like he’s doing something that people think must happen, that he has become an agent of the general will.
By doing it thusly, he avoids getting too far out in front of middle America. It also means that people taking him on are taking on a much larger force. The method is one he used again and again in his campaign.
At some point of course he absolutely can’t avoid an inquiry into what went on — the possible undermining of American government is so absolutely stark that to not address it is to leave a gaping hole in history.
Yet with its prosecution of the war in Afghanistan, the administration is heading towards a fullblown crisis, and increased conflicts with a Democratic congress — who want to expand the eight-person closed committee who first heard these revelations to become a 40-person committee, a move Obama has threatened to veto — a moment which might mark a clear rupture between the Obama administration and American liberalism, once and for all.
Perhaps it hasn’t quite dawned on Mr Rundle, however it may be the case that there is never any “longed-for moment” (longed for by whom one might rightly ask?) in which the President or Vice president take the stand in some kind of trial.
The reason is that it would set a very nasty precedent for each outgoing president to suffer trial by smear and innuendo by the incoming administration who would be diligently digging away at the secret papers of the previous administration, looking for anything which might be in the slightest legally shaky.
I am not sure that Obama’s administration would welcome such scrutiny when their terms are up in 2012 or 2016, following years of sustained combat operations, and a possible conservative administration decides that payback really is a bitch.
Plus, as he mentioned, some of the current Democrat leadership in both Congress and the Senate might come out looking decidedly dirty as part of the collateral damage of such a trial.
I am sure that the Bush Administration did things which were possibly on poor legal ground; however the same can be said of Clinton, Bush senior, Reagan, Carter (that is if he actually did anything while in the Oval Office), etc.
In addition, if they try and place Bush or Cheney on trial, how will Obama and Co respond to the statement, that will have a pile of resonance with middle America, that some rules were bent to stop terrorist attacks that would have killed innocent American lies?
It would be hard for Obama’s administration to avoid the claim that it cares more for terrorist’s rights than for the lives of US citizens.
The US is engaged in a war against people who seem to equate mass murder with religious fulfilment and who don’t always follow the rules of warfare. Unfortunately the democracies at such time find themselves having to stretch the envelope of what is possible to fight such an evil.
During WW2 the democracies undertook carpet bombing of civilians as part of the total war philosophy, conducting acts that were morally repugnant then and now, in destroying a much greater evil.
Similarly today, the US and the democracies are fighting against a great evil that considers slaying of civilians, either Muslims or infidels, to be a standard tactic in their war on modern western civilisation.
Sometimes the line between doing what is right and doing what is expedient gets very blurred, especially during conflicts.
I hate to be glib, but sometimes you have to do a little evil to defeat a greater evil.
Dear Michael,
There is a significant difference between actions that might be on shakey grounds legally & outright illegal conduct.
For democratic government to work ultimately we are reliant upon the ethics of those in power. They must reasonably follow the law or the system breaks down. By the time illegal acts become apparent it is quite often a case of “too late she cried”. There must be an inherrent honesty within the system.
It is becoming more & more apparent that the Bush Administration didn’t just bend the rules but intentionally & with malice aforethought acted contrary to law. It took advantage of the “war on terror” to some how give this conduct a validity it could never have.
Not only was it illegal activity but the raison d’etre was false. It did not make us or the USA safer. It did not advance the war on terror. It failed as an activity at the cost of maintaining their own legal system.
To advance the argument of carpet bombing in WW2 as an excue is as irrational as it is odious . In WW2 Britain was facing extinction. Terrorists will never threaten the existence of the USA. It was repayment in kind and the targets always had an underlying military objective. The process was as much an outcome of the weaponry available.
BTW since neither Britain or German civilians morale collapsed under the effect of “terror bombing” it show how ineffective terror really is as a weapon.
The war on terror is a misnomer. It is acts of criminals and as has been shown in the past, is best defeated by “police” actions. It is illegal activity. Breaking the law because somebody else is is neither logical or effective in defeating them.
What you are arguing is that you want the police to halt burgalry by breaking into houses?.
Your comment “I hate to be glib, but sometimes you have to do a little evil to defeat a greater evil.” is not only glib but wrong. I have found over the years that every hard problem usually has an easy solution……that doesn’t work & that’s what you are suggesting. A solution that doesn’t work.
As much as one might yearn for the sight of Bush, Cheney et al in the dock (with Howard and preferably in The Hague) it is probably naive to believe that it is at all likely. Each day that passes confirms that Obama is really Bush-lite and he has no more intention of a more open, accountable and ethical domestic and foreign policy than any of his predecessors.
A coup d’etat was staged in the US on 22 November 1963 and since then the decisions that matter have been made by (almost exclusively) men who are not accountable in any recognised sense of the word.
The Congress for its part is hopelessly compromised by its accession to the policies of the past several years. There will not be a proper inquiry because to have one would expose them for their complicity in the illegal wars, the torture, the undermining of the US constitution, the kangaroo courts etc etc.
One of the terrifying things is that the Howard government passed a slew of legislation equally repugnant to the notion of a liberal democracy under the law without a peep from the then Labor opposition who have done nothing since coming to power to amend those assaults upon our liberties.
They probably assume that there are enough Michael James’ around who will parrot anti-Muslim idiocies long enought to keep people from asking what is happening and being done in our name, from Palestine to Afghanistan to name but two recent examples.
Pav, Overall you make a fair point, but when you say:
In WW2 Britain was facing extinction. Terrorists will never threaten the existence of the USA. It was repayment in kind and the targets always had an underlying military objective.
I say:
Dresden. No military or strategic value. More civilian casualties than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It got flattened because Bomber Harris wanted to try out his incindiary ordnance.
I’m not trying to draw some kind of moral equivalence between the Nazis and the Allies, but nuances are important.
M
Hi Michael B.
I’m sorry but I’ll have to disagree although god knows I don’t want to be an apologist for Harris. I can raise a number of arguments against the bombing offensive on tactical/startegic grounds alone. Forget the morality my opinion was that it was an ineffective use of resources.
For example allocating say another 24 VLR Liberators would have closed the Atlantic air gap years earlier & saved countless ships & sailors.
One UBoat factory claimed they did not lose a days production throught the was despite many attacks until the very last days of the war.
High explosive delivered by unguided weaponry from 10,000 feet or higher is pretty inefficient.
Scary but inefficient.
I don’t mean this as a criticism of the the brave airmen involved but just an opinion with the advantage of hindsight
If it was merely a test of incendaries surely they’d had enough practice by that time plus why involve the USAF.
The intelligence of the time indictaed 110 factories, 50,000 workers. As Germany’s 7th largest city of the time is beggards belief that there wouldn’t be a strategic target. There was an artillery manufacturer plus chemical works & high end optical factory. There was possibly a chemical factory which also raised the spectre of ‘gas” production.
Dresden was also a rail hub an attack could be seen as supporting an offensive in the east by the Red Army.
I’m not saying the intelligence was factually correct but there was enough information to mount an argument that an attack would fit the strategic aims of both the RAF & the USAF.
Cheers