Torture and its aftermath

Two things are clear from yesterday’s speeches by President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

1. There are wide differences in our understanding of the facts surrounding America’s policy of torturing detainees. Were these practices necessary or effective? If so, why did President George Bush stop using them after 2004? Were they legal or moral? If so, should they be used going forward to protect our nation?

2. To sort out these questions, the U.S. needs a formal investigation, conducted by an independent panel or prosecutor with full subpoena power and the highest security clearances. It should be made clear from the outset that if Americans violated our own laws, they may be subject to prosecution or other sanctions.

It’s now clear that President Obama’s “don’t look back” approach is wrong-headed, given the gravity of this situation.

Anyone who believed that the Monica Lewinsky/Whitewater matter — or Iran-Contra — deserved a full investigation can hardly feel otherwise about these allegations.

A word about language: I’ve become convinced that waterboarding is torture.

But even if one quibbles about waterboarding, it’s also been proved beyond any doubt that America deliberately handed detainees into the custody of third-party countries when we knew that they would be tortured.

America’s intelligence community — with Bush Administration sanction — clearly decided that
torture was a necessary strategy to keep the country safe.

The question now is what do we as a democratic society do about that fact?