Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

John Dean: The Politics of Excusing Torture In The Name of National Security

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 07:15 PM
Original message
John Dean: The Politics of Excusing Torture In The Name of National Security

The Politics of Excusing Torture In The Name of National Security

By JOHN W. DEAN

Friday, May 15, 2009

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.

<...>

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.

<...>

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.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Very helpful piece - thanks! k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. An important read, imo....
Dean's criticism is soundly based and not politically motivated. There is also a reasonable rationale provided along with the encouragement for the pressure to be kept up regarding dealing with the behavior of Bush and Cheney.

Thanks for posting this, I have great respect for John Dean and his comments do nothing to diminish that respect.

Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mari333 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. k n r
because we need to keep beating the drums for truth and transparency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. "National Security" tail wagging the presidential dog?
New boss meet the real bosses?

Democracy? Or, a silent military coup?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes. It seems to boil down to "we'll have rule of law when the military is comfortable with it"
and we should all be less than comfortable with that. Particularly given the track record of American military might over the last century -- too many coups and dictator buddies outside the rule of law for them to be the bottleneck in matters of international law and human rights.

If adherence to the UN Convention Against Torture needs to wait until the national security bureaucracy is comfy with that, then we need to be honest about the role of the military in our political system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Broad generalizations versus "some"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Sorry, I'm not quite getting the argument here. In 2007, 2 admirals and 2 generals
wrote that letter to Leahy and this has what implications for Dean's argument, exactly? Obama is only playing to the emotional needs of some, but not all, of the national security community by reversing on the release of tortured detainee photographs? We only have to wait until some, but not all, of the military are ready to prosecute war crimes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. What? You went from agreeing with this:
"a silent military coup?" to not understanding that not everyone in the military needs to be appeased and brought around to denouncing torture?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I agreed with Tierra's post. You picked out the phrase you wanted --
which is fine, I don't mind: if you need to focus on coups, then a military coup is the overthrow of a legitimate government by a military cadre. It doesn't require "everyone in the military." But you didn't answer the question -- what are the implications of that 2007 letter for Dean's argument? That the need to emotionally appease the national security community is not so great after all?

Moreover, what would you call a political system where the UN Convention on Torture can't be enforced -- our our elected officials can refuse to enforce it or use their political offices to call for its enforcement -- until the national security bureaucracy accepts that? I imagine you're not okay with that, even if you wouldn't call it a coup?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Not trying to justify Dean's comments or Obama's motives, but as far as acceptance
the American public appears to be split on the issue.

Neither politics or polling places anyone above the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-14-09 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
11. This passage is very key in understanding Obama's strategy...
...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.

(...)

...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.


However, Dean encourages us to continue "beating our drums" because Obama knows we are asking to do what is right; he needs the public pressure in order to effectively do what is right without alienating the NSA.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC