Obama Is In Denial On Torture (Justin Frank, M.D.)

[pat_k]

The Daily Beast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-26/why-obama-is-in-denial/full/">Why Obama Is in Denial
by Justin Frank
April 26, 2009

The president is doing the American psyche a great disservice by refusing to aggressively push for the prosecution of those who engineered the Bush torture policy. Justin Frank, author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, says there’s only way to psychologically move forward on the issue of torture: Prosecute the past...

We must prosecute our own war crimes so we can learn about our own passive complicity—otherwise, like my patient, we will torture again, unknowingly, until we recognize both the pleasure we derive from our cruelty and the pain it causes ourselves and others.

It is not enough to simply acknowledge the sadism of Bush’s motives and leave it at that. This is essentially what Obama proposes when he urges reflection but not retribution. He seems to recommend facing facts without experiencing the emotional impact of them. Obama’s reluctance to further pursue the matter is sort of like turning up at a funeral wearing a red dress: one recognizes the death enough to show up, but denies any pain at the occasion. It is perhaps the subtlest way to evade psychic truth.

...In the Bush years, we let others do our sadistic dirty work, and washed our hands of any responsibility. Now the damn spots won’t come out, but they may serve to help us move ahead—soberly, but with renewed self-respect.

[sui generis]

1. yeah. I find it ironic that we're agreeing to deport an old nazi

war criminal while looking the other way at our own.

Oh we ARE complicit when 48 percent of respondents polled yesterday thought that torture was okay in high profile cases.

Does anybody understand the disconnect that happened in Germany when a generation of children woke up and discovered they hated their parents for either participating or looking the other way? Those of us who look the other way today will be no less guilty to our children.

And all the while the hand wringers piss and moan about how could it have happened there, to normal hardworking intelligent Germans?

Here's your answer, right here in the U.S., happening right in front of us.

[pat_k]

3. Tragically, "it's ok to torture" as a "policy"

. . .has been made an acceptable by Obama's refusal to unequivocally reject torture.

Just as the refusal of Congress to impeach "sent the message" that the torture "can't be that bad." If it was intolerable, the so-called Congressional "leadership" would have called for immediate impeachment. With tacit approval conveyed by the failure to impeach/prosecute, it shouldn't be surprising that so many Americans heard, and bought the "torture is tolerable" message.

Those numbers would become 25/75 overnight if Obama fulfilled his duty and told the American people that he is committed to ensuring that the DOJ has all the resources required to meet its Constitutional to fully investigate, from the highest official down, and where warranted, prosecute.

[Buzz Clik]

2. I hope that several hundred more editorials are published on this exact topic and...

... I hope all of them are pasted onto DU without comment in the OP.

(do I really need my :sarcasm:?)

[pat_k]

5. What comment might you expect?

The editorial speaks for itself.

[Buzz Clik]

6. So you agree 100% with the editorial? Half the cowards who paste this crap pretend that it's fyi.

[pat_k]

9. I agree 100% that we must prosecute to save. . .

. . .our national psyche; our national soul.

The Supreme Law of the Land mandates prosecution of those who perpetrated war crimes. It is not an option. Not an "opinion." (If you question this, might want to check out http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5508911&mesg_id=5510386">this post)

I agree that Obama is in denial. The Constitution is in breach. Obama's denial, and the denial of so many other elected officials, is helping to ensure it stays that way.

When Obama immunized CIA agents who acted "within the four corners" of the tortured legalisms issued be the OLC, he arrogated unto himself the role of judge and jury. He politicized criminal justice. By declaring his desire not to "target" those who participated in the war crimes, he makes every CIA agent a suspect. And he dishonors the CIA agents, FBI agents, NCIS, Navy, and other personnel who refused to participate, or who ordered underlings to "stand clear and report."

When Obama told us the decision to prosecute the authors was "not my department," he abrogated his duty to declare his commitment to our treaty obligations and commitment to ensuring that the DOJ meets those obligations by vigorously prosecuting those responsible for the war crimes that the nation, and the world, know have been committed.

Although I take issue with certain assumptions regarding human nature and reject Dr. Frank's assessment of the public's complicity,¹ his assessment of the benefits of fulfilling our obligations, and the devastating consequences of failure, is generally consistent with my own.

America is an idea that is reflected in our aspiration to "create a more perfect union" and in the principles embodied in our Constitution, our Treaties, and U.S. Code. Whether you call it the American psyche or the American soul, if we fail this test, the idea that is America is dead.

---------------------------------------

1. The truth is that "the public" has been way ahead of the beltway. Despite the "leadership's" all out effort to suppress the will to impeach, Members of Congress, especially Pelosi and Conyers, were hammered by people demanding impeachment of bushcheney for torture and other abuses of power. It was not for lack of public pressure that Congress failed us.
   
   Tragically, Pelosi's "off the table" edict" sent the nation a crystal clear message: Bush must be right, waterboarding is legal; it's tolerable -- if it weren't they'd be impeaching. After two years have having that message hammered home, it shouldn't be surprising that a lot of Americans bought it.

[emulatorloo]

4. Why do all these articles feel like they were written a month or two ago?

I feel like I am in a time warp.

[babylonsister]

7. Why is it cosidered denial for the president to hand over

decisions on a legal matter to the judicial branch? I'm not getting what everyone's so upset about.

Talk to Holder for answers; he now has the reins on this.

[pat_k]

10. When Obama immunized CIA agents. . .

. . .who acted "within the four corners" of the tortured legalisms issued be the OLC, he arrogated unto himself the role of judge and jury. He politicized criminal justice.

He has done nothing to undo the damage done.

By declaring his desire not to "target" CIA employees who participated in the war crimes, he makes every employee of the CIA a suspect. And he dishonors CIA, FBI, NCIS, and Navy personnel who tried to stop the crimes, refused to participate, or who ordered underlings to "stand clear and report."

President Obama has a duty as head of state to ensure that our treaty obligations are met. It is his duty to ensure that the DOJ meets those obligations by vigorously prosecuting those responsible for the war crimes that the nation, and the world, know have been committed. He has http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gTltgMKbsh8zQbZ0m3UarJ8QxAAAD97P32E01">failed in that duty and appears to be in complete denial about it.

After all the White House efforts to keep prosecution of anybody "off the table," trying to "back off" by saying "Not My Department" when asked about prosecution of the criminal OLC lawyers doesn't cut it. To "hand off" responsibility in this national crisis -- and make no mistake, this is an unprecedented crisis that will define this nation for decades to come -- is an intolerable abrogation of duty.

In this crisis, this nation is far more likely to do what must be done if we have Obama's leadership. We need him to make our treaty obligations, and the gravity of what we are facing, Crystal Clear to the nation. It is not the time for excuses; it is time to push for action. We need him to commit to making sure the DOJ has the resources, White House support, and access to documents that it needs to do what must be done.

[Demeter]

11. I Don't Think It's Down on Paper

I think it was just a soundbite. I think Obama is playing a very slippery game, and I hope to hell he knows what he's doing. Because he'd be the only one.

It's not like anyone could even claim he made a verbal contract.

[pat_k]

12. I'm not willing to merely "hope to hell."

My hope is that he is "reachable" -- that he is capable of responding to public pressure to do the right thing (which necessarily includes condemnation of the wrong thing). I have little trust that he "knows what he is doing." All I know is that today, right now, he is doing the wrong thing, and needs to be taken to task for it.

As far as "immunizing" -- I don't imagine there have been contracts of immunity signed in a back room (but who knows?) so you're right, his statements are not binding in that sense. But binding or not, he seems to be protecting participants in war crimes from prosecution, and that is intolerable in an American leader.

Obama's politicization of criminal justice cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The proposition that every CIA agent who participated in the "program" actually believed, in good faith, that slamming a captive's head against a wall 30 times; keeping them awake for a week and a half; or subjecting them to water torture did not constitute cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, is absurd on it's face.

But, even if it were not absurd, it is the role of the court, not Obama or any other political figure, to be the finder of fact on such matters. While "just following orders" may prove to be a legitimate defense in a given case, it mustn't be allowed to be institutionalized as a blanket "get out of jail free card" by presidential fiat or "prosecutorial discretion."

[tomp]

13. how about because obama said, however, half-heartedly,...

...during the campaign, that his administration would investigate to see if any crimes had been committed and if found so, they would be prosecuted? and, iirc, it was around the time of the mutual obama/powell endorsement.

who is ultimately responsible for the failure to prosecute? i believe it is obama, legally and morally.

[Senator]

14. Because this is only in small part "a legal matter."

And even on that front he didn't exactly "hand over" decisions, as other here have pointed out.

As the article points out, Obama's "looking forward" bromide is really a call to look away.

He has simply dropped the reins, if he ever picked them up in the first place.

--

[spiritual_gunfighter]

27. Yeah

Obama is doing what he is supposed to do, hand it over to the attorney general. If Obama went around screaming for people's heads on this, the Republicans would pounce on him and never let up. He is doing exactly what he should be doing without the political firestorm. He is smarter than most of us, especially politically. He said last night that waterboarding is torture. He also said and has said from the beginning that torture is illegal. Add it up, or do I have to do it for you?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. He's either in denial or is protecting his Democrats in Congress who know what was going on. n/t

[Psychic Consortium]

15. No, it is the American people who are in denial. Obama is waiting for them to face reality.

It takes time to get heads out of the sand.

[pat_k]

16. So, that's the new definition of leadership?

Wait for a parade and jump in front of it?

What's worse than this failure to lead, is the refusal to even follow. The impeachment/prosecution parade has been http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=441643&mesg_id=441736">going for years. Instead of jumping in front, our so-called "leaders" (and that includes http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">Obama) have been doing everything in their power to stop it -- dictating what is inexplicably "off the table," admonishing us to "look forward, not back," or parroting whatever the meme of the day might be.

The notion that the American People have turned a blind eye to the bushcheney torture program and other intolerable abuses of power is the opposite of reality. The American People would rush to embrace a true champion of their values.

[Psychic Consortium]

17. Obama is not waiting, he is releasing a great deal of data....

these are the first steps.

A great leader meets people where they are, and leads
them in the right direction. Obama is now doing that.

[pat_k]

18. Funny, I thought somebody said he was waiting.

But perhaps it's just easier to "look forward, not back."

[Psychic Consortium]

19. We are like abused spouses who cannot believe we are now in a healthy relationship.

Time will show us that we can trust Obama.
We will heal as a nation and a people.
He will be the best president the US has ever had.

[pat_k]

20. Obama has offered little on which to base such faith.

Obama's deeds over the years give us little reason to trust him to stand and fight for our most fundamental and inviolable principles -- at least not on his own.

• As Senator, Obama failed to object to the bushcheney torture and blatant abuses of power by calling on the House to impeach, and calling on his colleagues in the Senate to vote to remove if articles were presented. Instead, he supported the all-out effort to suppress public demands for action by http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">promoting impeachophobic propaganda. He failed to fight for our right to have confidence in our elections by refusing to join the Honorable Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and Sen. Boxer in objecting to the unlawful Ohio electors. He failed to join a united filibuster to stop the confirmation of Alito, a champion of a unitary, authoritarian, executive, and instead opted to give the pretense of opposition by casting a losing vote "against" on the floor.


• As President he continues to unlawfully and indefinitely hold people who were seized and subjected to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment under orders from bush. By so doing, he continues the cruelty.


• He continues to advance the Un-American and Unconstitutional bushcheney claims to arbitrary, authoritarian power to invoke "state secrets" to quash judicial resolution of controversy. The fact that http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/28/secrecy/">the effort was unsuccessful does not excuse it.


• He refuses to tell the nation that the acts of torture we know were committed are crimes that must be prosecuted -- that it is for the criminal justice system, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5508911&mesg_id=5510386">not him, to judge whether or not following orders or relying on criminal legalism is a valid defense. (And BTW, contrary to what some DUer's assert, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/whose-century-was">declaring a crime to be a crime does not constitute executive interference with the course of Justice.)


• He refuses to declare his commitment to ensuring that the DOJ vigorously prosecute the crimes, from the top of the chain to the bottom. He refuses to acknowledge that the perpetrators must be brought before a court of law to meet our treaty obligations.


• He politicizes criminal justice and interferes with the independence of the DOJ by abusing the power of the bully pulpit to "guarantee" that CIA agents whose criminal abuse under color of law was "within the four corners" of the criminal OLC memos never face justice.


• He refuses to unequivocally reject Cheney's assertions that torture is not torture as the criminal lunacy it is. Instead he tells us he "disagrees" with Cheney, which just http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5536949&mesg_id=5555613">confirms pro-torture propaganda that answers to the "question of torture" are merely opinion. Like other equivocators on "both sides" (e.g., Ginrich) he "can't say it's not a crime; won't say it is."


• Both President Obama and Attorney General Holder validate the pro-torure propaganda that employing the rules of criminal procedure, which are designed to protect the sanctity of our civil rights and render a case-by-case verdict in a manner that is as free of passion and prejudice as possible, would be a "political spectacle" that would wrongfully "criminalize" the criminal bushcheney detention "policies."

Criminals cannot destroy a nation; only the dereliction and corruption the enforcers can do that.

The means by which persons are committed to the custody of the state, and the treatment to which they are subjected while in custody, defines a nation. Recognition of this dates back to the Magna Carta. The inviolable principles are embodied in our Constitution, Federal law, and International treaty. In the face of such blantant criminal acts by government officials, the people we elect to serve us are duty-bound to impeach, remove, and prosecute. Our Congress failed to even attempt to impeach, but that doesn't relieve the Obama administration of its duty to prosecute.

The massive power of the United States Presidency has been abused to openly subject captives of the USA to torture. When Bush ordered Americans to torture, he put our Constitution -- our identity and aspirations as a nation-- into breach. He openly violated our law.

This is an unprecedented crisis. There is no escape from our duty to put a former President on trial for war crimes. Our chances of meeting the challenge, and preserving our government will be far better if we have a true champion to leading from the top.

Until what must be done is done, it is up to us, and the people we sent to represent us in the House and Senate, to do everything possible to "make it so." And that means making our demands for action clear, condemning the current dereliction, and challenging our fellow citizens to stop being "co-dependent" rationalizers.

Contrary to what those who are quick to pin the label "Obama-hater" on others may think, the challengers challenge because they believe Obama has it in him to be the champion this nation needs. In light of his history, it's clear it's going to take a big people-powered push, but if the challengers did not believe him capable of coming through, they wouldn't be lobbying for action; they would be lobbying for his impeachment for treaty violations.

[Psychic Consortium]

22. Obama will see to it that justice is served. There is no doubt whatsoever.

You will see this in time.
Have faith in the greatest president America has ever seen.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. Barack, is that you?

[FiveGoodMen]

25. While you're at it, what are the next winning lottery numbers?

[Psychic Consortium]

30. Don't do lottery numbers. Only politics. Sorry. nt

[spiritual_gunfighter]

28. Exactly

Those that are demanding that Obama declare that Bush broke the law and serve his head on a platter, don't understand what is going on here. He knows the law, he knows a lot more than we do about what happened. He is letting the attorney general take this, which is what should happen. The political fallout that would take place if for instance he had answered Jake Tapper's question about "did Bush break the law" directly would have disengaged this entire process. The repukes would have framed this as a witch hunt and right now about half the people don't want prosecutions. They could have easily gotten them to believe in this supposed witch hunt and this would be a disaster for the entire process.

[Psychic Consortium]

29. You are 100% correct.

PC loves your name. :)

Keep posting what you see and know.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

31. Thank you PC

Love your name as well.

[MasonJar]

21. Laws were broken in serious ways. The guilty must be investigated and tried and punished,

which is much more justice than the perpetrators gave their victims. It is inconvenient for Obama and hsi agenda, but so what. It is the most significant thing on his agenda.

[Wind Dancer]

23. Excellent article!

Laws HAVE been broken and those responsible must be held accountable.

More from Dr Frank:

Recent events reveal a variety of defense mechanisms we use to remain in denial about the meaning of the Bush administration’s atrocities. We turn away and ignore them, following the example of Peggy Noonan, who recently urged the nation to “move on.” We say that the torture orders were issued purely for national security reasons, or ascribe them to the darker natures of George Bush and Dick Cheney. We minimize their relevance in comparison to our economic challenges, or sabotage the investigation by politicizing the process.

But the existence of sadism is a part of the human condition that is both universal and universally hard to acknowledge. While it is painful to experience another person’s cruelty, it is perhaps most unpleasant, from a psychoanalytic perspective, to confront it in oneself.

But we must confront our sadism to protect ourselves from it. We socialize our children to contain their unbridled sadism, and implement laws to limit its impact in adults. From the Ten Commandments to the penal code, our laws protect us from the sadistic behavior of others, and even from recognizing sadistic feelings in ourselves. But when those laws are broken, we must face our common sadism to guard against more severe expressions of it.

[Vidar]

24. Great editorial.