The Dumpster Fire of Obama's Moral Authority

[wiggs]

193. I'm fine with lots of different reactions getting out there for people to

think about, so thanks Will. I'm fine with both the outrage and with those who think that the admission of torture is a significant step...helps us think about our personal positions...my personal thought is that the current lack of prison sentences for those who participated in torture programs ten years ago can't be chalked up to the supposed moral failings of one person.

I don't believe the President is uniquely and solely responsible for how our country responds to what happened since 9/11 wrt torture (and I, for one, believe that we engaged in torture much more extensively than just waterboarding three guys...I think the torture story is much bigger than we've heard). In some unfortunate but real ways, I'm sure Obama's position as acting president is more complex than a quick analysis and blanket condemnation would suggest. After all, Obama is nothing if not thoughtful and considered...I assume he's looked at this issue the same way he approaches most other issues....with great care, listening to all points of view, looking at the big picture, looking at long term consequences. I highly doubt he's allowing some sort of moral bankruptcy drive his decision on this.

...Has he asked Justice if there's a solid case or not?

...Who else aside from the president can call for or initiate legal action? Can't Justice Dept move on their own? Can't someone affected by the torture program bring a suit or file a legal complaint? Apparently Congress could file suit if it wanted...and certainly Congress could be at least calling for legal action too if it were inclined.

...Has he asked Congress to consider working with Justice Dept (a la Watergate) to determine if there's a worthy pathway?

...What have his advisers told him about how much a long, ugly, unprecedented trial of past elected and appointed officials would help or hurt USA image around the world and in particular with those who are already pissed off at us? You can't say with black and white certainty that such action would ONLY help and there would be no downside...so what are relative weights of the pros and cons that a world leader has to consider? It's a big deal.

...Does such an action belong in US courts or in world courts or in the UN?

...How much weight can the head of the democratic party give to this kind of action? People talk about how much an ugly Obama impeachment would benefit the democrats...so how much would an ugly criminal trial of past elected officials benefit the republicans?

...What are the numerous short and long term effects of the Justice Department going after the CIA, an arm of the government? What are the structural ramifications?

...Aside from public, ugly legal action initiated by POTUS, are there other ways to right the ship and address moral issues at the same time as addressing domestic, political, diplomatic, and geopolitical issues? Have any of these steps been taken even though outside the view of CNN and the NYT? Just because we don't see Cheney in handcuffs doesn't mean that there isn't a ton going on behind the scenes.

I ask these questions not to defend torturers but to state the obvious: that a president's job is not the same as a journalist's job and that there are many, many factors and long games and favors and dynamics and pending bills and foreign relationships and other parts of government to consider.