Glenn Greenwald: The significance of Obama's decision to release the torture memos

Glenn Greenwald
Friday April 17, 2009 06:48 EDT
The significance of Obama's decision to release the torture memos

(updated below - Update II)


Numerous commentators are objecting to the idea that Barack Obama deserves credit for his release of the OLC torture memos yesterday in light of his accompanying pledge that CIA officials relying in good faith on those memos won't be prosecuted. Chris Floyd is one who articulates that objection quite well and, as is always true for Chris, his criticisms are well worth reading. Many others -- including Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Turley, John Dean and Bruce Fein -- yesterday lambasted Obama for his anti-prosecution stance. Since I gave substantial credit to Obama yesterday for the release of the memos and believe even more so today that he deserves it (despite finding the anti-prosecution case as corrupted and morally bankrupt as ever), I want to return to the issue of Obama's actions.

Purely as an analytical matter, releasing the OLC memos and advocating against prosecutions are two separate acts. It's perfectly coherent to praise one and condemn the other. There is an unhealthy tendency to want to make categorical, absolute judgments about the persona of politicians generally and Obama especially ("I like him"/"I don't like him"; "I trust him/I don't trust him") rather than case-by-case judgments about his specific acts. "Like" and "trust" are sentiments appropriate for one's friends and loved ones, not political leaders. A politician who does something horrible yesterday can do something praiseworthy tomorrow. Generally bad people can do good things (even if for ignoble reasons) and generally good people can do bad things. That's why I care little about motives, which I think, in any event, are impossible to know. Regardless of motives, good acts (releasing the torture memos) should be praised, and bad acts (arguing against prosecutions) should be condemned.

Beyond those generalities, I think the significance of Obama's decision to release those memos -- and the political courage it took -- shouldn't be minimized. There is no question that many key factions in the "intelligence community" were vehemently opposed to release of those memos. I have no doubt that reports that they waged a "war" to prevent release of these memos were absolutely true. The disgusting comments of former CIA Director Mike Hayden on MSNBC yesterday -- where he made clear that he simply does not believe in the right of citizens to know what their government does and that government crimes should be kept hidden-- is clearly what Obama was hearing from many powerful circles. That twisted anti-democratic mentality is the one that predominates in our political class.

In the United States, what Obama did yesterday is simply not done. American Presidents do not disseminate to the world documents which narrate in vivid, elaborate detail the dirty, illegal deeds done by the CIA, especially not when the actions are very recent, were approved and ordered by the President of the United States, and the CIA is aggressively demanding that the documents remain concealed and claiming that their release will harm national security. When is the last time a President did that?

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/17/prosecutions/index.html

but the release of information attesting to such deplorable acts that are the outrage. As Senator Inhofe said so plainly when speaking of the release of the first pictures of torture at that jail in Iraq. "I am Outraged at the Outrage" They are mad that the pictures were released not that torture was committed. They are mad that people are finding out just how despicable those acts are but not mad that the acts were committed. When they apologize it is always that they are sorry you took offense not that they said something offensive. They are sorry you found out we tortured not that we tortured.

I also love his comments on that fraud Mike Allen (and this too).

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/mike-allen-bush-mouthpiece.html

Sorry Mike Allen - your response is pathetic
They either go on the record or STFU.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21369.html

He talked with Andrea Mitchell, who unbelievably, is/was "reporter" during the dubya years, even tho' she is married a man who helped run the ecomony into the ground - she essentially was "first lady of the Fed Reserve" for years, yet there never was a conflict of interest?

I will get my news from Salon and Greenwald, from the Daily Kos, and from many of the other news sources quoted here on DU! The articles Greenwald has written over the past few weeks are some of the best I have ever read!!

MSNBC has some good shows that I will not miss watching (KO, Rachel, Ed, sometimes Hardball), but they still have the GE interest behind them, which can limit their objectivity!

The only time I ever saw him be anything less than straightforward and truthful--in my judgment--was when he didn't cover Jon Stewart's lambasting of Jim Cramer. He gave a million excuses for why he didn't, and all of them were lame. I believe the real truth is that he was told he criticized CNBC any further at his own peril, and, well, he was also a little personally put out that Jon Stewart was being called another Edward R. Murrow for what he did, and for some reason there are "issues" between him and Stewart. So we heard all about how he didn't cover it because there was too much other news to cover (such as KO's latest smackdown of Billo) and besides, well, he can't be expected to cover EVERY word that happens to come out of Jon Stewart's mouth, for crying out loud (as if anyone had expected him to).

Greenwald outlined the Obama situation very well here. It's completely possible to be very upset about one thing he does while being very happy about something else he does. Only fanatics believe you must either hate or adore everything anyone does.

and I LOVE KO and his show, where would we be without him; but by saying GE is still "over" him, I meant he still could lose his job over something - you never know when he would make a comment they wouldn't like (although he hasn't been too cautious yet!).

Did you see what NBC/GE did this week on TODAY show? The wife of Jack Welsh wrote a book and they had her on I think it was Thursday TODAY show and then again this morning. Promoting a ridiculous person, book and shilling for their former boss! Does he still hold some kind of power over them?