Krugman: Reclaiming America’s Soul

[ProSense]

Op-Ed Columnist

Reclaiming America’s Soul

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 23, 2009

“Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” So declared President Obama, after his commendable decision to release the legal memos that his predecessor used to justify torture. Some people in the political and media establishments have echoed his position. We need to look forward, not backward, they say. No prosecutions, please; no investigations; we’re just too busy.

And there are indeed immense challenges out there: an economic crisis, a health care crisis, an environmental crisis. Isn’t revisiting the abuses of the last eight years, no matter how bad they were, a luxury we can’t afford?

No, it isn’t, because America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people,” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.

And the only way we can regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world, but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible.

What about the argument that investigating the Bush administration’s abuses will impede efforts to deal with the crises of today? Even if that were true — even if truth and justice came at a high price — that would arguably be a price we must pay: laws aren’t supposed to be enforced only when convenient. But is there any real reason to believe that the nation would pay a high price for accountability?

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business.

link

Kerry on Ed Schultz: we can pursue the truth and do the business of the country

[msallied]

1. I agree.

And anyone who disagrees with this doesn't have a soul.

[antigop]

2. I cannot believe we are even having a conversation on this as to whether to investigate or not. n/t

[FourScore]

3. knr. Krugman is so articulate. n/t

[Reterr]

4. Recd.eom

[karynnj]

5. I agree with both Krugman and Kerry

I wonder though if Obama actually disagrees.

There is a spectrum of what can be done on addressing the issue of torture done in the Bush years. On one extreme, there is Dick Cheney and his daughter insisting that it wasn't torture and if it was it worked. They would have preferred Obama block the FOIA judgment. On the other extreme, there are some wanting a "Nuremberg"- like trial for everyone from any CIA agent/soldier who participated to any degree to Bush and Cheney. (This would likely be more extensive than Nuremberg itself was.)

To some degree, it is clear that Obama wants the facts out. It is also clear that he wants to make it 100% clear that that is not the policy now and it never should be again. It would be good if he asks Leahy to write legislation that repeals the Military Commissions Act (we called it the torture bill) and replaces it with having the CIA follow the military manual on this (or any better way to this. The disclosures link Bush and Cheney to torture for all history.

How to get all the facts out is where there seems to be differences. What seemed to be an interesting compromise that Kerry spoke of here and in the USAtoday interview was a bi-partisan commission outside Congress. He mentioned the example of Desmond TuTu and South Africa which went this way to get beyond the crimes of Appartheid. His opinion in the USAtoday interview was that it would get caught in partisan fights if it were in the House or Senate. Obama seems to have ruled out such a commision. The question is whether Obama can be pushed to support this or if Holder will name a special prosecutor.

[ima_sinnic]

15. "truth commissions" are for emerging democracies like So. Africa

-- they simply "reconcile" and move on; they do not punish anyone. I am disappointed Kerry would endorse such a namby-pamby idea, particularly considering the fact that he knows all about the evil BFEE and BCCI Bank.

The vermin that tortured are retreads of the vermin who sold arms to Iran to raise money for death squads in Central America and eavesdropped on Democrats at the Watergate Hotel. They should have been eradicated decades ago. Not incarcerating them simply allows them to come back and do worse. With each crime they have gotten away with, they come back bolder and more lawless, this time actually starting a war on false pretenses and torturing people to get false confessions to "justify" that war. They are scum of the earth and need to be EXECUTED for TREASON. Their activities have damaged this country and its Constitutional freedoms and "moral compass" more than any other entity, situation, or event.

[karynnj]

29. Having a truth commission does not preclude trials

The fact is that Kerry may have been looking at what things had more than a snowball's chance in hell. Between investigations in Congress, which would become political circuses and this - this might be better. It has no impact on whether the DOJ pursues it.

(Kerry's BCCI hearing was an anomaly - in that none of his peers thought there was a political gain in it - just a price. That was true for Kerry as well, but he saw it as important. That's why there are photos of Kerry sitting alone in the middle of a big table. Even after he amassed a huge amount of damning information, to get action he had to bring it to a court the DOJ rejected it. It was the NYC DA who took it.)

[stevenleser]

36. See this link to another OP (by me) for what might be happening

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8369894

I think Obama is getting some pressure from the DLC on this.

[mkultra]

6. now why see why he is an economist and not a politician

The reasoning has to do with the expenditure of political capital, not man hours or watts of electricity.

[ProSense]

7. Nonsense.

Political capital is not a valid argument for not prosecuting war crimes.

[mkultra]

8. Your argument is so detailed

I find not the depth to contradict. Perhaps an equally well thought out "yes it is!" would be in order.

[ProSense]

9. Do you mean to say that it has

fewer words than your well-thought out previous comment?

[mkultra]

17. It adds nothing new.

Aside from contrariness.

[ProSense]

25. No, it's a direct disagreement with your argument

Nothing contrary about it: Political capital shouldn't enter into a discussion about prosecuting war crimes.

[mkultra]

32. well i think it is.

seems about equal in measure to your responses.

[karynnj]

11. Number of words and detail are not correlated with thoughtfulness or correctness

Her comment is actually as detailed as yours that she responded to. You state potential loss of political capital is a reason not to investigate - she states that it isn't. Where is your greater detail - telling us that an economist is an economist?

[mkultra]

12. As per conversational tradition

I added material to the conversation by including a new point of discussion, namely political capital. This is a significant step from simply being contradictory, which was the whole of here contribution.


Thanks for playing.

[karynnj]

14. She added the cotention that political capital should not be

determinant. Your statement assumed that is should. I take hers as a moral judgment that this is important enough.

Your response was simply obnoxious -especially as she is known for having a high content level to her posts and didn't deserve your slam.

[mkultra]

16. and your just being assumptive.

I could careless what you think of her, if she attacks me with contrariness and idiocy, ill tell her so.
Thanks.

:dunce:

[ProSense]

18. Get over your self-righteousness.

Check your idiotic response at comment 8.

[mkultra]

21. pot....meet kettle

#7

[ProSense]

23. Do you even understand what that means?

I said your claim that this was about political capital isn't valid.

How is that self-righteous?

[mkultra]

31. wow, you can be dense

the self-righteousness of responding with "nonsense" and then following up with dismissive contrariness makes you the winner.


:hippie:

[ProSense]

33. What?

That has nothing to do with being self-righteous; it's a simple statement that what you said was nonsense.

I wouldn't throw the word "dense" around if I were you.

[stevenleser]

26. I wonder if most people agree when it is all laid out...

If spending the political capital to prosecute meant that not enough was left for Universal Healthcare, fixing Social Security and repealing DADT and other similar initiatives, I dont know if it is worth it.

The question is whether Obama is savvy enough to do all of the above. The periodic release of memos might be one way he is trying to do that. If he builds up enough outrage over the period of a few months through release of material, political capital might not be hurt by prosecution.

[LooseWilly]

34. I'm curious to know if people would agree...

I, personally, feel so offended by the blatant violations of Rule of Law, International Treaty Obligations, and good old fashioned Accountability, that I think prosecuting for torture is a high priority.

I realize, and agree, that Universal Healthcare, fixing Social Security, (I'm not even sure what DADT is...), etc. are important goals on the National level, not only in terms of humanitarian concerns, but also in terms of stabilizing some of the points of financial hemorrhaging that's crippling the National Economy.

Personally though, I'll go even longer without health insurance, and I'll forego Social Security entirely, if that is what's required to make sure that those who decide that they're above the laws are actually dragged out of their political tree houses and prosecuted as mercilessly as the crack dealers on the streets are prosecuted (I might even be willing to allow the cops to plant evidence if necessary, just like they do on crack dealers that they particularly dislike).

That's just me though. That's why I'm curious if I'm the only one... is everyone else more concerned with modernizing social safety net programs?... or looking to get some payback for the insult of those who think they're above the law?

[karynnj]

10. Or, Krugman may see that doing something - even a commision

will add to Obama's international credibility, thus making Foreign policy easier. Also, by naming a commission, he then has little future involvement until commenting on the results.

[paulk]

20. this goes beyond politics

it's about who we are as a nation

[mkultra]

22. this OP is more about who krugman is not.

which is anything beyond an economist.

[ProSense]

24. So economists aren't allowed to state that torture is criminal and should prosecuted?

Who is allowed to make this point?

[paulk]

27. for you maybe

others, perhaps, have a broader field of vision...

[karynnj]

30. Actually, he is a human, a citizen, and he has views beyond economics

No one is claiming he is right because he got the Nobel Prize for economics - we are saying that we agree with his values on this issue. How arrogant you are to think that this obviously intelligent man can't give an opinion on this - while you have never cited your likely very impressive credentials.

Which area of expertise should decide this? Should I ask my rabbi at services tonight? I know her well enough, I would bet she agrees with us. Should I ask a daughter at a Jesuit college, who is a religious studies major, to ask her professors?

From your political capital comment, it seems you think only politicians - or is it only politicians with overwhelming support - can offer an opinion. I guess that means you would have thought Bush could decide in 2001, 2002, 2003 when he was above 60 % rising to 90%.

Sometimes the popular thing is not the correct thing.

[Vidar]

35. K&R.

[Jennicut]

13. Its in the DOJ's hands now. A commission is a waste of time.

What has ever come out of one of those things?

[karynnj]

28. Many things have come out of commissions

In the US, the Kerner report in 1968 was used as justification of programs to help the poor.

The example cited here was the truth and reconciliation commission headed by Desmond TuTu in South Africa that dealt with all the crimes of apartheid - that was the one referenced by Kerry because it relates to some degree. That example has been copied by other countries.

The question now is what will the DOJ do. If they do nothing or little, Obama may be pushed to reconsider something like this if there is sufficient demand.

[paulk]

19. good to see Kerry's thoughts on this

we need to reclaim our moral compass...

for the good of the country the Bush admin needs to be called to account

[LWolf]

37. I'd like to repeat this part:

<snip>

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business.