Why We Need A Truth Commission

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:13:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Digby points to the execrable Harold Ford's conversation with Chris Matthews on torture and concludes:

The argument against torture is slipping away from us. In fact, I'm getting the sinking feeling that it's over. What was once taboo is now publicly acknowledged as completely acceptable by many people. Indeed, disapproval of torture is now being characterized as a strictly partisan issue, like welfare reform or taxes.

More . . .

I think this raises the following issues -- who does Digby think of as "us?" The country? The Democratic Party? Progressives? For pols are pols and do what they do. For example, Barack Obama will not say what Harold Ford said. But he won't do much about the issue either. Unless . . . there is a political price to pay.

It is why I focus more on a Truth Commission than prosecutions. As long as the discussion is kept rather distant and abstract, it will be a "political" Hardball-type issue. But if the country is forced to confront what it has done, I think the discussion will be different. The true discussion of torture will not begin until there is a public reckoning on the issue.

Justice Department investigations will not achieve that. An open and transparent Truth Commission can. Dick Cheney seems confident that President Obama will never let it happen. So far, I am not sure Cheney is wrong.

At this point it seems fair to say, given Dick Cheney's open call for a full and frank discussion of the torture issue, that the only thing standing in the way of a Truth Commission is Barack Obama. Left of center pundits, anti-torture activists and progressive bloggers seem loathe to ask the obvious question - why is President Obama opposed to a Truth Commission?

Digby writes that "we" may have lost the torture debate, but she does not ask herself why. The main reason, imo, is the failure of "us" to challenge the Obama Administration on the issue.

Speaking for me only

< FTC Alleges Mortgage Lender Discriminated Against Latino Borrowers | GOP Intelligence Ranking Member Calls For Release Of Torture Info >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Why We Need A Truth Commission | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:24:29 AM EST

on the Truth Commission. I think it will just be seen as a partisan food fight. I'm for prosecutions because there will actually be consequences for the people that did the torture. Ford is pretty much conceding that Obama is failing in this area. Once again the GOP is running a mack truck over him while he cowers in the corner.

There will be no holding Obama accountable by "progressives". The only accountability will be him losing the 2012 election.

Assume you are right (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:27:15 AM EST

and I think you are not, if we cannot even get Truth Commissions, what are the chances of prosecutions?


Well (none / 0) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:32:02 AM EST

considering there's zero chance of either happening I suppose you could say it's all a moot point. Right?


Hardly (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:34:18 AM EST

a zero percent chance, at least for a Truth Commission.


Do you (none / 0) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:35:28 AM EST

think that congress is going to defy Obama and do it anyway? That's what you seem to be implying. I don't see that happening.


: No (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:49:25 AM EST

I think Obama is a pol and reacts to political pressure. As my latest post describes, the GOP is ramping up the pressure.
Progressives? Not so much.

But grand jury proceedings are secret (none / 0) (#33)
by MKS on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:21:59 PM EST

The dirty laundry is only aired at trial--if there is one.

A Truth Commission gets all the facts out there while the process is ongoing. There is a reason that Truth Commissions have been used--they work.

I understand the argument that only corrupt nations would stoop to a Truth Commission--but I fear that many in the U.S. are actually fine with torture. Peggy Noonan's comments about "just keep walking" and leaving it all a "mystery" I'm afraid represent the view of many people--and perhaps close to a majority in this country. Laying out all the facts--including those describing how the innocent have been tortured and murdered in U.S. custody--may change that view.

A Truth Commission could be broader than a trial. You could rely on evidence otherwise perhaps inadmissible at trial. Hearsay and relevance need not be impediments to having issues and incidents fully explored.


Obama is worried IMO (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by Saul on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:30:55 AM EST

that if he goes down that route to hold those he ordered torture accountable now he will loose the few republicans he might need in order to pass his hospital bill and other major bills. IMO although the AG is suppose to be independent of the President, Obama has probably given this message to Holder with a wink and a nod.

I also feel that as time goes on the Obama administration are going to make some major mistakes down the road and Obama does not want to set a precedent of another administration investigating a previous administration after they are gone.

If (5.00 / 10) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:33:59 AM EST

Obama is too afraid to do the right thing for the country then he has no business being President. He's setting up the country for a huge fall in the future. Can you imagine what a President Romney could do with the gaping holes Obama is leaving for him?


I want the investigation (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Saul on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:47:13 AM EST

Don't get me wrong. I think not investigating Bush and Cheney and others will be a big mistake. Attorney Bruce Fein had always advocated the impeachment of Bush & Cheney while they were in office.


Saul, you might be interested in Bruce Fein's (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by DFLer on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:55:08 AM EST

views on the torture issue, as per a recent show with Bill Moyers

"We ratified the convention against torture in the Senate. We passed it and made it a crime - it's not a Republican or Democratic issue... In 2004, we confronted the same problem we had with Nixon - he wasn't going to investigate Watergate... But now the President and Vice President who authorized this are gone, so there's no obstacle. If President Obama didn't want to be President and faithfully enforce the laws, he shouldn't be there... If Obama thinks that these people, as he's said, have committed torture, and he doesn't believe it should go forward for political reasons, he needs to pardon them... Then, at least, we do not have a situation where we have set a precedent that lies around like a weapon, that you can violate the law with impunity."

He also says if Dick Cheney is so hot to trot about the efficacy of torture as an intelligence tool, than he should advocate to repeal the US signing to the above mentioned convention.


: Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Saul on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:12:50 AM EST

Bruce was adamant about impeaching Bush & Cheney because he said that if this goes without any accountability then we have set the precedence for any future president to do the same thing.

I was watching Morning Joe (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:42:53 AM EST

this morning and saw a conversation that illustrates Digbys point perfectly. one of the Cheney daughters and some other people. they have the talking points down to a frightening smoothness.

I am starting to think, and I hope others are as well, that the only way to win the argument with them as to whether what they did was torture and illegal is to have some prosecutions. we need to show them they are wrong and we are right and what the did was indeed illegal. I am starting to think that is the only way to win the argument.

As long as Cheney et al manage (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by inclusiveheart on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:00:17 AM EST

to keep this issue out of the court system, they are free to continue to build their case and to change the public's perception of torture.

Typically, the Democrats of the early 21st Century continue to allow the Republicans to remain on the political playing field when they should move swiftly to send them over to the less partisan and political arena of the courts - where they would be shown to have broken the laws both domestically and internationally - then the debate would be effectively over - until of course the Republican Party takes up the platform of legalizing torture for the 2012 election.


: I think that is the only way (none / 0) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:03:39 AM EST

to win. otherwise they will just turn it into another hesaid/hesaid. just someones opinion.
the only opinion that is going to settle this is a legal opinion.

more High Cohenism (none / 0) (#15)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:53:32 AM EST

What if Cheney's Right?

Blogger Alert: I have written a column in defense of Dick Cheney. I know how upsetting this will be to some Cheney critics, and I count myself as one, who think -- in respectful paraphrase of what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman -- that everything he says is a lie, including the ands and the thes. Yet I have to wonder whether what he is saying now is the truth -- i.e., torture works.


Not the only question (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by ricosuave on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:26:44 AM EST

The question of whether torture works is not the only question involved here. If it were, we would routinely allow the torture of criminal suspects and airline passengers. (Just to be clear, I think that history proves that torture is very effective at getting people to say what you want them to say and horribly ineffective as an investigative tool, but let's pretend that it is a new technique that we are just learning about for the purposes of this discussion.)

Dick Cheney and his ilk are ignoring these other very important questions:

Is it legal?

Did the president or anyone else have the authorization to approve torture?

What does the fact that we tried and executed our WWII enemies for war crimes for using these very techniques say about them?

Would it be legitimate for our enemies to use these techniques against us?

Under what circumstances can these techniques be used, and by whom?

And finally: If it is so wonderful, legal, and effective, why do you have to be so freaking coy about admitting that it was done, who did it, and how it was decided? If you want to torture, come right out and say it. Don't say "we don't torture" on the same day you say "this is necessary and effective."

And another thing: Don't pretend that it is vital to keep the particular techniques used a secret from our enemies. Unless you are planning to kill everyone you torture or keep them locked up forever (are you?) then these guys are going to tell each other and the world what was done to them. We know that Central Americans preferred the capucha and electric shock in the 1980's because the people who it was used on told us. So stop being coy and start being honest.

Sorry to rant...having worked with torture victims a few decades ago, this issue really steams my tamales.


What a soggy mushbowl ... (none / 0) (#28)
by Meteor Blades on Tue May 12, 2009 at 12:19:57 PM EST

...that Cohen column is. Again.


Why (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by lentinel on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:48:08 AM EST

"The only thing standing in the way of a Truth Commission is Barack Obama."

Why are the left, progressives, democrats, people with a conscience, people who care about our safety silent on this issue?

If you write what you wrote above as a comment in Huffpo, or Kos - you will get hate mail in reply.

Watching the performance by Wanda Sykes left me wondering how many of the Bush era talking points have been absorbed by the left.
Bin Laden did it. Like the Lone Ranger. I never bought that.
But the torture-Cheney joke she told - implied that torture was wrong (right enough) but also assumed that it was effective.
(She equated it to a bank robber justifying the robbery by saying that he/she paid all her bills.)

I keep thinking that at least we could challenge that oversized oaf, Cheney, to give us specific details to back up his claims of efficacy. Give one documented example of a named tortured prisoner giving specific information that led to the avoidance of a specific act of terrorism. Seems simple enough to ask - or demand.

But most of my disgust is reserved for the left in this country.
Many gloated over "their" victory in electing Obama. Kos thinks that there is a some kind of "army" in his corner. Delusional, imo.

I keep thinking of Pogo's dictum: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

This is an argument AGAINST a truth commission (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by ricosuave on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:09:26 AM EST

and for a congressional investigation. A truth commission says that we need to get this information out into the public without repercussions to those involved. It inherently excuses the behavior and says that the release of information is more important than any legal action against those involved. An example is the fate of children taken from left-wing families in Argentina...the information could not have been released without a truth commission. Ford's lament is that this seems to be acceptable and any illegalities are being excused. A truth commission would continue to enable that.

The senate has the authority to investigate this, and there is no reason why they cannot. There is nothing stopping them that is not also stopping a truth commission. If there is political will in Washington to do it, it can be done by the senate. If the Senators are too tainted by their involvement, then there is nobody that can appoint a truth commission in any case. Partisanship accusations can be leveled against a senate committee as easily as a truth commission, but a Senate committee has the benefit of being formed by elected representatives.

I have heard plenty of arguments (which I agree with whole-heartedly) on why this needs to be investigated or aired in the public. All of the arguments for a truth commission seem to be arguments for investigation and not arguments for a truth commission instead of our representatives with constitutional oversight authority. I would love to hear some arguments of why a truth commission is required instead of a Senate committee simply beginning investigation.

Of course, the big question back to me is: Which Senator would lead this charge? The answer back is, of course, that none of them has done this so far. And that is a shame.

: Feinstein is investigating (none / 0) (#34)
by MKS on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:37:32 PM EST

but is doing so as Chair of the Intelligence Committee--and the hearings are apparently going to be closed because they will be examining classified information.
An open process is the key--whether it be a Senate investigation or an independent Truth Commission.

As I've said all along ... (5.00 / 0) (#29)
by Meteor Blades on Tue May 12, 2009 at 12:27:22 PM EST

...a Truth Commission is okay only as a last resort. It's the lowest level of pressing forward with accountability. And, as BTD rightly points out, it's unlikely to happen. Leahy just can't get any traction, and at least part of the fault lies directly with Barack Obama. I don't know for certain how deep his reasons are - fear of damage to Democratic collaborators in torture, fear of damage to his agenda on health, energy/environment/economy and foreign policy, philosophical opposition to such investigations, in general? Some aspect of all three?

But if we aren't going to have prosecutions or a formal in-your-face set of hearings, then a truth commission that delves into matters beyond torture - into intelligence overall - must not stop with September 12, 2001. We need to go back to where Otis Pike and Frank Church left off more than three decades ago. Otherwise, this whole affair will turn into a but-Clinton-did-it-too splatterfest.

I am comfortable (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 12, 2009 at 12:39:03 PM EST

with everything you say.

But I think that this idea that Eric Holder is going to prosecute ANYBODY after Obama announced that CIA operatives would not be prosecuted is sheer fantasy.

Yes, the Attorney General is "independent" in the sense of deciding to prosecute specific cases.

But when the President goes around issuing de facto blanket pardons, only a fabulist can imagine any torture prosecutions.

That is not to say that those calling for them are wrong - on fact they are right to do so and their calls are much more likely to lead to SOME accountability (Truth Commission or something like it) than early capitulators like me.

But I am trying to seize upon what Republicans are saying to see if we can use the Beltway CW to get something.

Off topic, great post on the Supreme Court debate, riffing on Dionne's column. Exactly my thoughts. Always have been and I always tried to argue that way back in the day - 2005 when Roberts and Alito were the issues.


: Have you read Glenn today, BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 12:50:14 PM EST

I just finished his post on Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed, in connection with the Binyam Mohamed case, and came away with a high degree of certainty that Obama will not be advocating for truth or prosecutions or investigations or anything else that looks back.
It was quite a disheartening read.

: I didnt say I thought (none / 0) (#32)
by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:03:11 PM EST

prosecutions would happen. I just said I think that ultimately anything else is a waste of time.
the "truth" revealed will convince no one who does not wish to be convinced. the apologists will make sure they have plenty of room for "more than one opinion" of what the "truth" actually is.

Delusions (none / 0) (#10)
by tokin librul on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:22:29 AM EST

The very BEST anyone could hope would be achieved on the matter of holding the Busheviks and their Dim enablers to account for their crimes against either their own people and Constitution, or the rest of the world would be yet another toothless Lee Hamilton-led, white-wash "commission," like the 9/11 commission, the Iran-contra commission, etc...

Like the Warren Court, the Church commission was a complete and never-to-be-repeated anomaly...

America Never Tortures (none / 0) (#11)
by kidneystones on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:39:10 AM EST

The Lumumba assassination, the Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, Bill Clinton's support for the destabilization of Iraq, Richard Clarke's darker side and Rand Beers lesser known friends all suggest that the America Never Tortures Myth is as important to Dems as it is to Republicans.

The only plausible reason I can think of for avoiding a truth commission is that Obama is either torturing folks now, either directly or via proxy, or that he wants to preserve the threat of torture.

Britain, France, Israel, Egypt, Russia, China, and Iran have all been plausibly accused of torture and of extra-judicial assassination.

Most parents I know would have no trouble at all inflicting damage of the most horrific kind to protect a child. The '24' scenario was overworked.
The willingness to do anything to protect loved ones is not.

My guess is that many senior Dems support the US of water-boarding, etc, in some circumstances but understand that lying about torture is critical to national security.

I wouldn't count on being consulted, either, when Obama strikes Iran.

I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by lentinel on Tue May 12, 2009 at 08:51:41 AM EST

what must an American soldier think would be in store for him/her if they were captured?


spies can expect just about everything bad (5.00 / 0) (#24)
by kidneystones on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:55:37 AM EST

The Geneva conventions, as imperfect as they are, are designed to protect uniformed combatants.

If some nut decides he/she is the enemy of the west/US whatever and then decides this status affords them the right to move among us and plot our destruction, then this person might well expect to be treated differently than someone serving a sovereign state in uniform.

Lots of service folks understand and appreciate the distinction. Barbarians have no rules. The rest of us have a few. You may not agree with them, but I'm pretty sure there are things most of us would be willing to do that we'd prefer not to have to consider.

If Cheney is right and there are documents confirming that torture produced good, actionable intelligence, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised. That doesn't mean I 'approve' of torture, it means I'm not surprised that folks have been tortured or threatened with torture.

Most nations in the world reserve the right to take life. Exercising that right is a different question.


: The eye of the beholder (none / 0) (#35)
by lentinel on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:06:32 PM EST

It seems to me that one person's soldier is another person's spy.
The people at guantanamo - what are they?
The people we have tortured - what are they?
Is the distinction their relationship to a sovereign state? Did none of the poor slobs we picked up have uniforms?
I am left with the impression that Cheney and Co. would torture anybody they felt like torturing.
You said that you wouldn't be a bit surprised if the torture meted out yielded "good, actionable intelligence". I would be very surprised. We have yet to be provided with a single documented instance of this despite Cheney's assertions. They could report something that had gone down 4 years ago without it jeopardizing national security I would think.
But I will admit that I think that they, Cheney et al, are liars. I wouldn't trust anything they said. I just think they like to torture and kill. The glee with which they went into their "shock and awe" campaign - slaughtering children - tells me that they have no concern for the sanctity of human life - whether civilian or uniformed. Spy or soldier.

If the point that torture is utterly unacceptable (none / 0) (#22)
by No Blood for Hubris on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:44:35 AM EST

is not yet getting across, shouldn't one yell louder/organize more vigorously/do whatever it takes, rather than just piping down in rueful regret?

: Not one or the other (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by ricosuave on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:52:33 AM EST

I am following both courses. Alternatively yelling about it and quietly despairing. Sadly, my Senators (Hutchison and Cornyn) seem to like torture. Alot. I was told before November that help was on the way, but it didn't seem to arrive. So you will forgive my despondency on the matter.

Yup (none / 0) (#25)
by DancingOpossum on Tue May 12, 2009 at 09:59:12 AM EST

we need to show them they are wrong and we are right and what the did was indeed illegal. I am starting to think that is the only way to win the argument.

Yup -- agree completetely. It's either illegal or it isn't, and they're either prosecuted for illegal acts or they're not, and Obama should pardon them. A Truth Commission sounds too much like the 9/11 Commission to me, and we all saw how good a job that did of holding the right people accountable.

I think Obama may be getting pressure from Democrats -- it can't only be Bushies and Republicans who signed off on this or are implicated in it. There may well be prominent Democrats involved too, who don't want that can of worms opened.

I actually think Pakistan will be the next place our Antiwar President strikes, but either way, yeah.

White House prosecutions? (none / 0) (#26)
by KoolJeffrey on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:15:00 AM EST

Barack Obama told CIA employees in person that he didn't support prosecuting them for the harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects. But he did leave open the possibility that those who drafted the legal opinions justifying such questionable techniques could end up facing charges.

Since the Oval Office must have known about such and effort and took no action to prevent it (since they directed these activities themselves), clearly the President and Vice President are culpable. Any prosecutions that do not include the President and Vice President them will be viewed as show trials of scapegoats who were just following orders.

It seems pretty clear that Americans are tuning out this issue, and it doesn't surprise me at all. As despicable as these policies were, I get a real sense that people just want to forget all about the disastrous Bush years, and the torture issue just keeps reminding them of the misery caused by his administration. They just want to know that it won't happen again and leave it at that.

Republicans are still kicking the torture football around because they have pretty much nothing else available with which they can fire up their hawkish base. The fear card doesn't seem to be working. Why they think any of this is helping them in the long run is mystifying. Keeping Dick Cheney in the news seems like the worst thing they could do right about now.

I want a commission with a broader scope (none / 0) (#27)
by BernieO on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:58:57 AM EST

I would like a commission to look at the trade off between security and rights with the aim of creating new guidelines for future crises. This commission should investigate what has happened, both in terms of the way we treated prisoners as well as invasion of privacy, in order to determined what was done, what worked, etc.

If the commission's aim is to guide future actions, it will be harder for the right to frame it as political payback. The truth will still come out and we will have a debate about what to do going forward.

I don't care about prosecutions nearly as much as I do about getting to the truth. Yesterday there was a discussion with Ted Koppel on NPR's Talk of the Nation about torture. An ex CIA guy said from everything he has heard the torture did not produce good intelligence. The FBI also disagrees with Cheney's claim that torture is effective. Yet Cheney and co. are getting away with claiming that torture and illegal spying kept us safe, which is why so many are OK with it. We need to get the facts out, but in a way that does not look partisan, so that the public will have confidence in the findings. A bipartisan commission of experts that is charged with coming up with policies for the future would be a good way to accomplish this, IMO.