Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Politics of Excusing Torture in the Name of National Security
Allow me to share some analysis about the way things work in Washington. President Obama's flip-flop on his agreement to turn over photographs of detainees being tortured by American soldiers is a message with broad and clear implications. Those who believe that the Obama Administration should expose and prosecute persons who committed war crimes should understand that it is not going to happen the way they would like, or as quickly, because Obama is having internal battles as well. His pullback is not occurring because he fears that Republicans will attack him (he knows they will); rather it is occurring because he needs the national security community behind him, and they fear they will be further embarrassed and humiliated if more information is revealed.
According to The Washington Post, President Obama told White House lawyers he does not "feel comfortable" releasing the photos because of the reaction they could cause against U.S. troops, and because "he believes that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court," in responding to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. [Emphasis added.]
Even before looking closely at Obama's change of mind, I understood immediately what had taken place, as soon as I heard the report on the radio. President Obama was, in fact, speaking for the national security bureaucracy in announcing his change of mind. I knew it would happen at some point. Although his first instinct had been to release the pictures, as he had released the new Justice Department torture memos, it was clear he had been turned around, and I was certain it was the work of the national security bureaucracy.
My hunch was confirmed by the AP report, which explained, "American commanders in the war zones expressed deep concern about fresh damage the photos might do, especially as the U.S. tries to wind down the Iraq war and step up operations against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan." How do the commanders know this to be the case? How do they know that it is the not the case that, to the contrary, more people around the world might admire us for openly correcting past mistakes? In fact, you can be certain "the commanders" do not truly know that the photos will harm America's image, but they do know how to protect the national security bureaucracy, after having risen to its top ranks. This is exactly what is going on here, and the explanation was pure bureaucratic excuse-making.
The National Security Bureaucracy
On average, it takes about 100 days for the great Executive Branch bureaucracy to begin to work its way and will on the new officials, and that threshold has now been crossed. If anyone believes a rookie president and his new team can take over the executive branch, and actually run it without the cooperation of the permanent people, those who remain in place as presidents and their appointees come and go, he or she does not understand how Washington really works. Political appointees come and go, but the folks who actually run the government have an ongoing agenda of trying not to let these part-time political people screw it up too badly. Nowhere are there more of these permanent career professionals than in the departments and agencies that constitute the national security community.
Few presidents have true national security experience before arriving at the White House. For example, of the last twelve presidents - Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama - only Eisenhower, Nixon, and Poppy Bush truly understood national security operations when they arrived in the Oval Office. President Obama, like all the others, is getting on-the-job training. Who is doing that training? While his appointees with national security experience are playing a role, they themselves were all trained by the national security bureaucracy, and since the Democrats have been out of power for eight years, Obama's national security team is still relying heavily on the career people. It takes about 18 to 24 months for a new presidential team to get control of the national security behemoth.
I have never tried to catalogue the parts of this dominant segment of our national government, but any off-the-top-of-one's-head list would have to include the Cabinet departments with the largest budgets, like the Department of Defense (with the Army, Navy, and Air Force), Department of State (with its Foreign Service and Embassies throughout the world), Department of Homeland Security (which united some 22 agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Transportation Security Administration.) In addition, virtually every Cabinet department has national security responsibilities -- from the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Justice, with its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). And, of course, there are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) - all are involved in national security.
In fact, since the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, the president has had a National Security Council, which fills much of the Executive Office Building beside the White House, and sits atop this huge apparatus with its reach throughout the federal structure, and the entire world. Suffice it to say that the national security bureaucracy is massive. David Halberstam, in his classic chronicle of the Kennedy era's national security establishment, The Best and the Brightest, viewed it as a great and powerful elephant, which meant that it is not easily troubled by others in the government jungle. Were David with us today, he might describe this Goliath as being very angry, which is a problem for President Obama. But he would also explain that the influence of the bureaucrats ebbs and flows.
Anger in the National Security Ranks, Stemming from the Bush Years
From generals and admirals at the Pentagon to Foreign Service officers in Foggy Bottom, along with untold thousands of the nameless and unknown career civil servants who soldier on to protect our national security, there is anger and resentment. Most of these people are not political in the partisan sense; rather, they work in and for our government to keep the nation safe, and take pride in their work.
For the past eight years, the Bush Administration has marginalized them, manipulated them, and beaten them down. Dick Cheney, in particular, worked to keep the national security professionals submissive, and to ignore their good advice. In a move that was unheard of for a Vice President, Cheney created his own National Security Council, which initially was better staffed and more knowledgeable than the statutory NSC. Cheney placed personal emissaries throughout the national security structure, not only to control it but to be certain that he was always aware of what it was doing, so he could operate accordingly. Dick Cheney had his own agenda, and it proved a disaster. Cheney cost the nation blood and treasure with his preemptive Iraq war. He embarrassed the United States the world over by demanding (and continuing to demand) that we use torture.
Our national security professionals have been humiliated. President Obama is a president who listens, and he has been told that airing the dirty linen that the Bush folks left behind will cause more harm than good. No doubt his top national security advisers - all products of the national security bureaucracy - started giving him serious heads-up talks when it appeared he was going to win the election, for that is when he began saying that he was more interested in looking forward than looking back, and that to investigate torture would only be looking back.
When President Obama hinted that he might prosecute those engaged in torture, he was forced to run out to the CIA for a stroking session to placate these national security professionals, assuring them that he was not going to prosecute any of them for following orders of the Bush/Cheney White House. The national security bureaucracy is testing its influence with the new president - and like all presidents, he will take some of its advice and reject other advice it gives. Right now, he is trying to figure out what to do.
Obama's Being Tested From the Inside And Outside
It is not likely that Barack Obama had widespread political support in the national security community, which would have had a natural affinity for one of their own like John McCain. But Obama needs to win their hearts and minds. He cannot effectively lead and protect the country without their support, and since so many are recovering from battered-by-the-White-House syndrome stemming from the Bush/Cheney years, he is dealing with their very bad mood. Rather than risk alienation, Obama has given in to them, at the expense of his natural constituency, the political progressives who find it appalling that the Bush/Cheney torture is not being fully exposed (and prosecuted) to prevent it from happening again -- and sooner, rather than later.
I would encourage those who are demanding exposure and prosecution to keep pounding their drums. Clearly, they are on the right side of this issue, and Obama knows it. While he is going to placate the national security bureaucrats from time to time in order to lead them effectively, hopefully the pressure for him to deal with the atrocious behavior of Bush and Cheney is only just getting started.
- Posted in
31 Comments so far
Show AllGood article by John Dean. He's probably right. I hope Obama can turn things around, but it will take time.
In the meantime, I shall pound the drums.
Did Mr. Dean hear yesterday that Obama co-opted the Bush administration defense saying that torture was the work of "a few bad apples"?
This doesn't sound like a President who is simply waiting for the proper time to spring into action until the Security Agencies become his BFF.
He sounds like a man who has already chosen that he'll side with Cheney's team, not the honorable security professionals or WE THE PEOPLE.
One would think that Obama, with his superb oratorical skills, would be able to easily explain to the public that both he and the security agencies believe in, and are dedicated to, the rule of law. Then he should use that big stick Roosevelt talked about and clean out Cheney's left-behind rot. Using any method necessary.
Then he'd be free to proceed with releasing the photos without fear of any backlash.
Wouldn't that be a better path than the one Obama is currently undertaking which is causing such confusion and anger?
The politics of excusing the corrupt and nefarious deeds of the American government criminals from: JFK,MLK, Vietnam,Nixon,911,Iraq, Wall street and torture in the name of the punic, canard of national security is nothing new as it has worked well for the crime family.They did coup D' etat on the Constitution a long time ago.
Political appointees come and go, but the folks who actually run the government have an ongoing agenda of trying not to let these part-time political people screw it up too badly. Nowhere are there more of these permanent career professionals than in the departments and agencies that constitute the national security community.
It's also within the realm of reason to suppose that if, despite everything, jellyfish Obama had demonstrated some audacity and gone ahead and released the photos, the Praetorian Guard of fixers, mechanics and assassins in the so-called national security bureaucracies would have adjusted themselves to the situation (though working furiously behind the scenes to screw Obama). Obama, like almost all Democrats in Warshington, cannot imagine that Americans would rally behind him if he showed that kind of courage. He might as well have remained a senator from Daleyland.
This is helpful perspective from Mr. Dean.
Recall from Jane Meyer's book, The Dark Side, that many of these policies were instituted through the VP's masterful Texas Two Step- bypassing the normal channels needed for policy approval.
If nothing else we will see the blow-back from the "National Security" political class; all the while yearning for days-gone-by when hare-brained plumbers were funded by ludicrously licentious lawyers looking for a happy hooker client list in the DNC.
I wonder if Mr. Dean thinks differently now that it has been reported that Obama wants to return to Bush-like Military Commissions?
Is he doing this too so he can become buddies with the security community?
Where will it end?
I'm reminded of the brit comedy 'yes, minister' and 'yes, prime minister' when reading this article. Only nothing about the bush administration was really funny, well, perhaps funny-strange but not funny-haha.
I'm sure the bureaucrats think that exposing the torture and prosecuting will bring the usa into disrepute for having acted in that manner. But not prosecuting those responsible for the bush crimes will leave the usa in a worse situation in the long run - and the long run is what nations pay the bureaucrats to think about.
The Obama administration will be damned if they do and damned if they don't prosecute, better to be damned for doing the right thing.
Great point!
"[Obama] needs the national security community behind him, and they fear they will be further embarrassed and humiliated if more information is revealed."
Obama is President. I contend that the President should not kowtow to any Govt. department. If the President is fearful that a little housecleaning will make department heads cry, then its time to clean the whole shop, and replace the humiliated with men/women of backbone, substance and morality.
WTF: " The President should not kowtow to any Govt. department". If Barack does not kowtow to the MIC his days would be numbered
So, Barak OBush thinks the Nationl Security bureaucracy will stop protecting the USA if they get embarrassed?
What a buffoon.
change you can do your laundry with.....
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Something seems to be overlooked. We're talking about releasing photographs. The facts of the alleged criminal acts aren't a state secret. I doubt that releasing photographs will do any more than releasing crime scene photographs would do in a criminal prosecution. Most often, the general public can understand the facts without viewing graphic pictures that judge, jurors, and attorneys see in a trial. Even in that context, judges (who have to view the photos no matter what) sometimes keep photos from jurors due to their inflammatory potential.
Maybe Obama is trying to conceal something, but I think it may be the opposite. He may expect that the truth will be more clearly perceived and acted upon without inflaming public and world opinion the way release of the Abu Ghraib photos did. The goal is to cause people to reach rational conclusions about what happened, hopefully conclusions that will improve U.S. standing and safety. Facts should be disclosed; photographs aren't necessary to knowing the facts, and could in fact obscure the facts if they are too disturbing. We all know that even photos that come to light will be redacted to eliminate views of genitals, faces, and other things that really no reasonable person needs or wants to see. Why people are so convinced that we have to see the photos themselves before we can understand, and possibly prosecute, Bush era criminality escapes me.
Besides the mere inflammatory potential of photos, their release could result in prejudice to persons shown in them who will be subject to prosecution. And victims of abuse, particularly Muslims, may face severe repercussions in their home societies even if they're totally blameless.
If Sy Hersh is to be believed these photos are pics of young boys and women being raped. Perhaps photos of 'terrists' hanging on meat hooks, who really knows what they are until they're released. Perhaps not knowing what they are is indeed worse than what they really are. However, if they're worse than what can be imagined...
Mr. Dean refers glowingly to the "untold thousands of the nameless and unknown career civil servants who soldier on to protect our national security", and mentions that Obama "was forced to run out to the CIA for a stroking session to placate these national security professionals".
The "professionals" at the CIA whom Obama "stroked" include those who inflicted horrific forms of torture on prisoners who had not even been accused of any crime. That doesn't quite fit Mr. Dean's characterization of "soldiering on to protect our national security."
Would someone please explain to me why every excess and any extreme is permitted in the supposed fight against terrorism except one -- being gay? Obama just allowed a West Point officer, who has tours of duty in the Middle East and who is one of the comparatively few people in the military who actually speaks Arabic to be forced out of uniform for the sole reason is that he admits he is gay rather than hide it. If drowning people in interrogations, bombing women and children because of mere suspicion a suspect might be present and trashing our Constitution and treaties are all deemed justified necessary, why in the world are those who happen to be gay not allowed to participate in saving the world? I'm not gay, but if gayness is not allowed, then torture shouldn't be either.
Signed: Lawlessone [for more irreverence, see resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
"If drowning people in interrogations, bombing women and children because of mere suspicion a suspect might be present and trashing our Constitution and treaties are all deemed justified [and] necessary, why in the world are those who happen to be gay not allowed to participate in saving the world?" Excellent question! Obviously, excluding gays has been deemed more important than honoring human rights, morality, law, and the Constitution.
Before the election, there was a lot of talk about, "... holding BO's feet to the fire." Well, it looks like it is time to stoke up the blaze and take his shoes and socks off!
No matter how useful and informative torture was or is it is illegal. If the excuses stand the the same arguments could be used by somebody/anybody doing torture or murder at any time or any place. These things have been illegal world wide for very good reasons but it seems our so called leaders don't understand the law "TORTURE IS ILLEGAL". Those that practice it are "WAR CRIMINALS" and "COWARDS" too stupid to understand the law. These war criminals and cowards will have earned a lifetime of terror knowing that they can be murdered at any time as well as their families, with no legal recourse. If the WAR Criminals are not subject to the law then is anybody subject to any law at all, or can you pick and choose?
I have a lot of respect for John Dean, always have. But this is just his opinion. A more plausible opinion comes from Karen Greenberg at the WaPo.
And then there is my opinion of the consequences for NOT releasing them.
I didn't realize you couldn't use html in the comments. The two links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051501746.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://ofrevelation.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-dolt.html
Sorry
Dean makes a reasonable assessment of Obama's motives.
However, the so-called "national security community" will not volunteer itself for media exposure, let alone prosecution for felonies, including capital crimes. Even the media exposure itself will involve revealing not only dereliction of duty but rank perversion, perversion far beyond the sexual pecadillos that most people do hide, after all.
This just gives an indication of how much pressure must be brought to bear to change this.
The US ship of state has been the Titanic, running into multiple Icebergs as it went, under the Bush/Cheney Cabal. As a large ship, it takes miles to turn, and as the last Admin has co-opted the Crew, it may take more.
It takes time. When Obama and his crew figure it out, give him a year, then the true professionals in Government will come out, and show him the Trojan horses.
There are the little problems of Two Quagmires and a sh*tty economy. They must be fixed too. Obama will go with "whatever works" and the least resistance for a while.
If he lets the law run its course then the rest is just window dressing.
It took eight years to get into this mess, it may take as long to get out.
Then of course a Republican will get in and do it all again.
There are different degrees of culpability, but the point is: Torture Is Illegal. It is, by the way, morally indefensible. So, it is irrelevant whether a person is a Democrat or a Republican. If they ordered the torture, if they manipulated legal opinion to "legalize" it, if they simply turned their back and allowed it to happen, they are responsible, and they are accountable. And to the degree that we, the people, try to brush this under the carpet and pretend it doesn't matter, we are also accountable.
I'm surprised the 0 team hasn't spun the withholding of these images as showing respect for the victims and their families.
Or are such sentiments reserved for American boys in American boxes wrapped in American flags*?
* likely made in China.
Let us try and make this simple. Water boarding...pouring water up someone's nose to make them very very very very uncomfortable in order to force information that maybe helpful or not in saving millions of innocent lives. Even a medic is present to help this poor fellow AND to see he doesn't experience any permanent damage, GOD FORBID. This behavior is so uncivilized...oh my! We have all had water up our noses....its most uncomfortable. But in a short time your head is clear again, no permanent damage. Now torture Nazi style is more like it. Right? Check it out. Do you need details. (I'm sure you can google it) The Japanese really were good too ... do you need proof. Cutting fingers off one at a time with bolt cutters...that's torture. How about bamboo sticks forced up under your finger nails. If it was up to John Dean and his followers we surely would not be speaking English today. Morally indefensible??? Sorry Charlie. History tells us that survival of any society was based on the fittest not morality. Dropping the A-bombs in Japan was said to have saved millions of lives of both Americans and Japanese soldiers and civilians .. was that morally correct? Two types of humans were necessary to be strong and prosper as a society. The two types; the Hunters and the Gathers. We need a balance of both. The Gondi's and the Patton's. Utopia is heaven - War is hell. Figure it out. Without the determination to vanquish the enemy you will be vanquished. Again, check it out "World History". Example: hoodlums breaks in your home in the middle of the night to do harm to you and your family. Is blowing them away with your Remington pump shotgun not a defensible response?? Or, you should let them have their way and hope for the best. There are times to turn the other cheek this is not one of them. Mr. Dean is in denial that their is even an enemy determined to vanquish our society. Check out the behaviors of the Nazis and the Japanese, these are good examples of enemies determined to kill us. The Germans were knocking at the door...our front door. Without men like Patton on our side we could easily be speaking German today. Would Patton have waterboarded a German prisoner to save his troops...I could just hear him now..."Why shit! That would be morally INDEFENSIBLE". Does the end justify the means if in the end its the end of your survival? Don't tell me you think that this is not about survival? Your in denial.
shouldn't that read "Yours in denial"?
what a load of apologist crap.
Get some help.
It was unnecessary to begin, "Let us try and make this simple".
The string of offensive and nonsensical gibberish that followed could ONLY be the product of a simpleton who is wholly incapable of coherent and complex thought in the first place.
Simplicity has its charms, but this kind of tormented and vicious simplicity most resembles the two-dimensional gamy simplicity of road kill.
I don't mean to hurt the writer's feelings, so it's a good thing kennybro has long since gone back to watching the "24" marathon-- and don't ask why there are Vaseline-lined socks draped over the arm of kennybro's La-Z-Boy.
· Yr Obd't Servant
de nile, the fact is that your country did engage in all the methods of torture that the nazis, the japanese and the spanish inquisitors engaged in. If you really want to apologise for that behaviour the correct way to start is by saying 'sorry', not by trying to excuse your evil ways by saying others are evil too.
Lets waterboard kennybro until he admits waterboarding is not harmless torture.
The point is simple, if we allow harmless torture, as kennybro explains, than we give the sadistic parties that have infiltrated our government permsion to do anything they like to American citizens too,for the same reasons of security.
Please , dont be so stupid as to reply " if your not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" save that crap.
Study Hitler and how he murdered 5 million people ( jews ) becauase he thought what he was doing was justified to save German lives.
Just ask the Right, most are "Christians", who would Jesus torture?
He would probably say, "Torture no one, remember how the Romans tortured Me?"
But I guess it is OK if you Torture, but just call it something else?
It used to be Words mean something, now it is just, words mean a way to get your agenda through.
It is just Politics.
Morality, right and wrong, be damned, it is just Politics.