Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Gay Marriage: The Power Of The Word | Main | Americans Feeling Good »

May 14 2009, 4:54 pm by Marc Ambinder

Ten Reasons Why A Torture Probe Is More Likely

Even as the Obama Administration remains resolutely opposed to a Truth Commission or major criminal investigation into TortureKampf, the wagon may have already been unhitched. Given the ten developments below, how likely is it that some sort of investigation, chartered with some sort of formal power, isn't launched?

1. Congress is in self-protective mode, with Democrats on both sides of the aisle defending themselves from charges (and some evidence) that they knew everything.

2. The Republican Party now has two buy-ins. One: that "torture" worked (c.f. Dick Cheney's legacy, etc.)  Two: that Democratic leaders sanctioned the techniques that were used, or appeared to, and are now trying to cover this up.

3. A raft of upcoming/ongoing court cases involving as yet undisclosed evidence about torture and rendition. The administration knows that they'll lose some of these cases, and more evidence will come out.

4. The war in Afghanistan and the question of what to do with Guantanamo detainees is vexing the Democrats now; a torture investigation can help them move those debates into more comfortable territory by relitigating the past.

5. The appointment of former JSOC commander in chief Stanley McChrystal to serve as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The guy knows where all the bodies are buried. Literally.

6. The Wilkerson/Duelfer revelations/allegations about Dick Cheney's involvement and the pressure that many "angel"-sided former Bushies face to put the blame squarely on the VP's office.

7. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's book comes out soon.

8. Calls by respected members of the GOP establishment, like Phillip Zeilkow, who want the historical record clarified.

9. Tension between the Democratic Party and the CIA, exacerbated by the Obama administration's release of the OLC memoranda and extended by the debate over the briefings.

10. Legitimate questions about the adequacy of Congressional oversight and about whether the CIA needs to reform its own contributions to the process, too.

Tags: | | | |

:: Comments (11) :: TrackBacks (1) :: Share This

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ten Reasons Why A Torture Probe Is More Likely:

» Ten Reasons Why A Torture Probe Is More Likely from The Moderate Voice
Read Marc Ambinder who lists them (and as always makes a lot of sense..) SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "", url: "" });... [Read More]

Tracked on May 15, 2009 8:34 AM

Comments (11)

ottovbvs

Did the administration ask for the Democrats approval of torture, did they even ask their opinion. No they informed precisely two Democrats in the senate and two in the house who were then precluded from discussing it with anyone because the info was classified. Mr Ambinder I thoughty you were professional. See this for what it is, a diversion. Particularly since both Pelosi and Graham say they were not actually informed. Graham apparantly disputed two of the dates when he was supposed to have been briefed according to the CIA who subsequently admitted an error.

DaveinHackensack (Replying to: ottovbvs)

Good luck spinning this one, ottovbvs.

DB Cooper (Replying to: DaveinHackensack)

Yeah, no joke. I'm the farthest thing from a Bush fan, and I voted for Obama, but Pelosi's denials ring VERY false, to me. If her scalp is the price of full disclosure and taking down the rest of the culpable parties . . . full steam ahead.

Rico (Replying to: DB Cooper)

Perhaps, but Pelosi is also calling for a truth commission, which means she has at least some confidence that didn't know enough to take any hits. I'm not saying she didn't know, only that she has enough plausible deniability to survive. Besides, if the information were classified, she couldn't expose it...and if she couldn't expose it, she wouldn't have been able to galvanize sufficient opposition to it. That's all speculation, of course. Let a truth commission sort all this out.

PeorgieTirebiter

While there's no leading Democrat who will qualify for his or her own chapter in an updated Profiles In Courage, the willingness of so many to focus on the politics is disturbing. Especially the preoccupation with Pelosi's role, which is likely to turn out being ancillary, and after the fact. I suppose framing a set of circumstances one way or the other is fairly unavoidable, but the entire list here really feels off kilter to me.

"...with Guantanamo detainees is vexing the Democrats now; a torture investigation can help them move those debates into more comfortable territory by relitigating the past."

What the hell does this mean? If Democrats are vexed by Guatanamo, it's a function of a shameless Republican campaign. To just assume that the Democrats, would automatically prefer to relitigate the past(which has monumental implications for the future of the country) simply to dodge what might prove embarrassing for a few, is to casually say their craven, and it disingenuously conflates very different events. I'm not sure how you relitigate something that's never been litigated, but you can hardly dismiss or minimize Wilkerson's recent accusations, with some sort of "asked and answered in the past" baloney. I can't remember ever reading an Armbinder post as facile and subtly biased as this one.

Jonothan8

"5. The appointment of former JSOC commander in chief Stanley McChrystal to serve as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The guy knows where all the bodies are buried. Literally."

Sully refs this, but I don't understand its significance. Can someone enlighten a slower reader?

PeorgieTirebiter (Replying to: Jonothan8)

I think it's about the pix potentially embarrassing/implicating McChrystal and digging too deeply into him would open a can worms. He's too big to fail apparently,because of his toxic assets. That was my take on Sullivan anyway. I'm not sure that makes sense here, but as I said earlier, I found the whole thing to be a bit of a an insider circle jerk.

PeorgieTirebiter (Replying to: PeorgieTirebiter)

I should probably add that it wasn't my intention to be overly critical of Mr. Armbinder, I generally find his stuff to be a cut above, but I'm beginning to think these types of speculation resemble police work. They gather a lot of circumstantial evidence, talk to their snitches and present their theories as being obvious. Then the case go cold, or the truth is discovered after the the killer confesses or his friends rat him out.

Jonothan8

Answering my own question, possibly, via Unqualified Offerings.

"I cannot help but wonder: do those photos contain evidence about illegalities that went on under McChrystal’s watch?"

paratus

"1. Congress is in self-protective mode, with Democrats on both sides of the aisle defending themselves from charges (and some evidence) that they knew everything."

Of course they knew everything.

The whole use of torture is a political witch hunt, as it went on under Clinton, especially rendition. So how far back do we probe? Gulf Wars? Vietnam? WWII?

Much ado about nothing, while Rome bankrupts itself.

Alesis

I think it's a little adorable that the counter-attack on Pelosi to shut her up might end up getting the ball rolling on an investigation.

Pelosi took a page from the Cheney book and said "Release the Memos" but some how I suspect that's the last thing the people attacking her really want.