Informed Comment Homepage

Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion

Header Right

Donate

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Email
  • RSS
  • Featured
  • US politics
  • Middle East
  • Environment
  • US Foreign Policy
  • Energy
  • Economy
  • Politics
  • About
  • Archives
  • Submissions

© 2023 Informed Comment

  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Uncategorized

Obama v. Cheney on Torture

Juan Cole 05/22/2009

Tweet
Share
Reddit
Email
0 Shares

Veteran security reporters Jonathan S. Landay and Warren Strobel at McClatchy fact-check former vice president Dick Cheney’s speech defending torture and denouncing plans to close Guantanamo Bay Landay and Strobel catch the vice president in a whole series of falsehoods:

The long and the short of it is that other high US officials doubt the allegation that torture was necessary to fighting al-Qaeda, or necessarily produced good information that could not have been obtained in any other way. McClatchy points out that Ibn al-Shaykh Libi’s confession, produced by torture, actually helped drag the US into a fruitless war in Iraq insofar as he made false allegations that Saddam Hussein was training al-Qaeda in chemical weapons. The US military combed six million captured Baath documents and found the allegation false.

It could also be added that torture almost certainly deepened and lengthened the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq, which contrary to Cheney’s claims was not mainly led by al-Qaeda.

President Obama’s speech on the same subject, is here. It is an important speech, but problematic. It is framed as an attempt to defend the Constitution from Cheney’s abuses, and as a balancing of transparency against national security. I’m not one of those he accuses of being a transparency fundamentalist. But I find him making too many concessions to the National Security State that are in my view unconstitutional. He maintains he is cutting back the abuses. But it isn’t good enough that one president should identify where he things the US government went too far, and voluntarily cut back. Cutting back from three packs a day to only one could still kill you. And what happens if a different sort of president gets in in 2012 and ramps up the abuses again? By declining to draw a clear and adjudicable line, Obama is unwittingly allowing the Right to lay the groundwork for permanent move to presidential dictatorship. Obama says he doesn’t want to re-litigate the last 8 years. That is frankly disingenuous. The last 8 years were never litigated. And crimes were committed. If they are not addressed, they will become norms, not crimes.
End/ (Not Continued)

Filed Under: Uncategorized

About the Author

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook Page

Primary Sidebar

STAY INFORMED

Join our newsletter and have sharp analysis delivered to your inbox every day.

Twitter

Follow Juan Cole @jricole or Informed Comment @infcomment on Twitter

Facebook



Sign up for our newsletter

Informed Comment © 2023 All Rights Reserved

Posting....