Of all the folks who might be upset about the release of the OLC memos justifying torture last week, one is getting lost in the shuffle: Obama’s speechwriter.
You see, on Thursday President Obama will be giving the keynote speech at the 2009 National Holocaust Remembrance Commemoration at the US Capitol. The event is sponsored by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and the theme of the event is “Never Again: What You Do Matters.”
Here’s where the speechwriter’s problem comes in. As the museum’s press release says,
“The notion that the Holocaust was the result of the actions of one man or a handful of leaders is false,” says Museum Director Sara J. Bloomfield. “The ability to carry out the genocide depended upon the participation of tens of thousands and the acquiescence of millions. This year, as we remember the victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators, let us reflect on our own responsibilities in a world of rising antisemitism and continuing genocide.”
So, one week after the DOJ releases memos that made torture the legal policy of the United States of America, and shortly after Obama announced that those who carried out this policy would not face prosecution, the speechwriter has to craft a speech for a Holocaust remembrance event.
Good luck with that, WH Speechwriter.
The US rejected the "Let bygones be bygones" theory of jurisprudence at Nuremberg, as well as the "we were just following orders" defense. It’s not enough for Obama to say "we repudiate these OLC opinions, and torture is no longer the official policy of the US government." That’s a necessary condition for returning the US to the rule of law and reaffirming our commitments to such international agreements as the Geneva Conventions, but hardly a sufficient condition.
Unless Obama and his DOJ make some dramatic moves before Thursday, that speech is going to be very, very tough to write. I can easily picture the speechwriter in front of the computer, holding an ice pack to the forehead after having banged it against the desk: "What am I supposed to say? ‘Never again’ seems a little hollow after those torture memos came out, doesn’t it? Can’t mention Nuremberg, or people will be asking about Gitmo. Can’t mention the glories of international law, the Geneva conventions . . . WTF can I say?"
And this does not qualify as "dramatic moves," especially this part:
As a general proposition, Obama said, "I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."
The practice of torture under the cloak of the law by an unchecked executive branch is the ultimate in politicization; investigating this and prosecuting those responsible is not. The practice of torture hampers our national security operations; the investigation and prosecution of those responsible is not. The practice of torture — even in the past — is the problem, and refusing to look back at what was done is inexcusable.
Like I said, good luck with that speech, Mr./Ms. Speechwriter. But here’s a hint: I wouldn’t mention the number "183" either. And when you really get down in the dumps, just tell yourself that it could be worse: the OLC opinions only sanctioned torture, not genocide.




44 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Things seem to be changing somewhat since those weekend statements. Obama now says prosecution is up to the AG and at least one torture memoista – Bybee – has lawyered up.
Citizen Peterr:
Sigh…the speech shouldn’t be hard to write if it starts with the premise that what the Israelis are doin’ to the Palestinians is genocide…
“What you sow, so shall you reap”. The White House put it’s self here with a string of decisions. No outright rejection of Rendition. Use of State Secrets to keep people out of court to challange government torture. Soverign Immunity to immunize government employees.
I fell bad for the speech writer, but as my grandmother said, “you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas”.
a profound post peterr, my ancestry is jewish, (which I have deternibed is more a heritage then a religions)
one of the things I can NOT understand is when someone with my heritage tries to justify bush’s policy’s of torture…sad to say this list includes relatives of mine
No doubt, it will be a banal speech.
Obama doesn’t have the power to shield anybody from investigation or prosecution, except through the power of the pardon. That simple.
“Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?” -H.G. Wells
How about: Never again until next time? It has the advantage of being true.
In a statement the White House release a clarification of the Statement ‘Never Again’ for victims of antisemitism and continuing genocide. The White House stated that this policy was part of its looking forward approach to Governing, as the this White House is looking forward to a time when these abuses of the past are no longer committed.
The White House continues: We will stand together with the State of Israel in condemning torture, collective punishment, unjust imprisonment, genocide, racial prejudice, persecution of minorities, all visited on peoples in the past.
We are looking forward to a time when these heinous crimes are behind us..
Now is a time for healing, so we can move forward together.
Excellent post, Peterr.
I don’t think Truman ever thought of saying
Is it not now impossible for us to hold other countries’ behaviour up to the world and cry “foul?” Who are we to be pointing to the human rights violations of other countries?
Cheney et al really believe the saying from Nam, “Kill ‘em all. Let God sort ‘em out.” As does Netanyahu and his ilk.
The link above that last blockquote is from his remarks today, not over the weekend. He’s walked it back from Rahm’s statement, but he’s hardly taking a big stance against torture. It clearly doesn’t get Obama away from his apparent rejection of the principles of justice that the US forcefully advocated at Nuremberg.
It’s better than Sunday’s remarks, but the difference is minimal — especially for that speechwriter.
Not that John Yoo wouldn’t write a memo legalising genocide if required.
One of the biggest problems people face or more likely ignore is the notion of being logically consistent.
One you start from a premise such as “we don’t torture” and it’s morally and legally wrong you need to continue with the action required to make those words seem consistent and not hollow posturing.
Of course politics seems to make people triangulate an awful lot. But what is lacking is real honest and logical consistency. It’s boggles the mind that anyone can be aware of serious criminal activity and come out with a statement that we need to look forward.
Shall we tell that to the people we owe money to? Shall we tell that to the cop who stopped us for speeding? This is the most nonsensical and inconsistent statement.
The future rests on the past. It can’t be ignored because it DEFINES the future.
We need some change we can believe in. Accountability and consistency.
OT or is it? The primary suspect in the murder of a young woman in Boston has been revealed to be a member in good standing of the Young Republicans.
what I am about to referance is so important it deserves it’s own entry here at the lake, I’m too busy to post a diary and I hope someone like you peterr can pick this up;
taking their work out of context the way the did is exactly the same thing as follows;
suppose a scientist posted a finding;
“we have found if you sever the leg of a cadaver they experience no pain nor loss of facility”
they then remove the word “cadacer’ from that research and claim the scientist demonstrated there is no pain or loss of facility when you cut off a person’t leg
that is exactly the same thing that went on here
Got link?
George Bush would have had no trouble with this speech. He apparently experienced no cognitive dissonance whatsoever when he mouthed the words, “We do not torture!”
I would hope that President Obama has enough of his frontal lobe left so that he would feel some cognitive dissonance delivering this speech.
Thanks, Peterr, for pointing out this occasion.
Bob in HI
Republicans and right wing ideologues always take information and twist them into a pretzel to fit their ideology. Not think tanks but belief tanks.
Last Thursday, Christy made that very point about the stupidity of trying to use the SERE training to “justify” the use of these techniques.
indeed I do
Obama’s stand and/or change in position on torture prosecutions is all kabuki. Holder has already signaled that it is not a priority for him.
This is especially egregious because we already know that policymakers like Cheney as well as the principals Ok’ed torture techniques like waterboarding.
right wing “think tanks” should be called “right wing koch brothers tanks”
DOH!
I think that understates the political gamesmanship that is an everyday occurrence inside the Beltway. The President and his AG would discuss major cases directly. The President could not be seen to obstruct justice, but he could make his wishes and priorities clear in a myriad of ways that Mr. Holder would not miss.
for me, the call to conscience of “never again” is a personal one and not a legal or national one. it’s a reminder to reflect on my own actions and inaction and then attempt to act on those reflections.
also, something i was taught by a very wise israeli: there are two lessons that can be learned from “never again” – never again for me and mine or never again for anyone. the choice of which lesson we learn is up to us.
thanks peterr for the reminder.
Obama says no prosecution for “those who carried some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the WH, I do not think that it is appropriate for them to be prosecuted.”
ok, so show me 183 authorizations for KSM, and 83 for Al Libi, and I’ll think about it. And are we to really believe that all of the waterboarding of these two men just happen to be contained within one-month periods?
bullshit.
P.S. It’s all Lyndie England’s fault.
Oh, this one’s pretty good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L50OZSeDXeA
But in these days of Obama “looking ahead and not behind” it would never see the light of day
whatever happened to Lynndie?
So basically Peterr is saying Obama is today’s Hitler while George Bush relaxes in his retirement.
Nice. *rolling eyes*
right wing think tank is an oxymoron
Obama bends with the wind. What a weak, useless person, with an ego as big as all outdoors.
from da Wiki:
“England worked in the kitchen of a prison (Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar) from which she was paroled on March 3, 2007, after having served 521 days.[1] She remained on parole through September 2008, when her three-year sentence was complete and she received a dishonorable discharge.”
I want to know what the USA will do when , not if, one or more of our soldiers are tortured?
that’s only because you’re more polite than i am. i’d let ‘er rip – and 183 would get at least a triple mention for emphasis.
When Obama was running in 08, when he spoke to the throngs in Berlin last summer, he said the Nuremberg war-crimes trials were remarkable, or his speechwriter wrote that.
Ms. Hamsher is upstairs.
Dear Jane: Time to Look Forward, Not Backward in Anger and Retribution
As a general proposition, Obama said, “I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.”
If by “critical national security operations”, he actually means “every single piece of legislation, domestic or foreign, that I ever wanted to have enacted” – he’s probably correct.
Why did he ever even weigh in on the prosecution or non-prosecution of those responsible for the creation of these policies? Biggest political blunder ever?
He should have punted it over to the AG on Day 1.
And we are, btw, still left with immunity *only* for those who stayed within “the four corners” of executive orders. I’m not buying that, for example, every KSM and Al Libi waterboarding was authorized. There’s still a whole lotta people who (hopefully) should be lawyering up.
clearly no, but refusing to prosecute people who sought to legitimize the use of torture as American policy does not bode well for our country’s commitment to the rule of law or, for that matter, human progress. The fact is, we’re supposed to have learned something in the last 70 years.
One should point out that while many countries torture or tolerate practices that amount to torture in their police stations and prisons, they generally do not seek to legitimize torture or embrace it as official policy like shrubco did. Torture is absolutely, categorically illegal even in countries like China, Turkey and Brazil, which seem to have many policemen who torture people with alarming regularity. Their governments make many lame excuses for their torturers – they don’t have funds to adequately train officers in proper policing tactics, they agree that torture is bad but don’t think the the West has the moral authority to tell them to cut it out, they don’t torture, they don’t have the regulatory infrastructure to police against torture, they’re too busy to adequately prosecute torturers, the people alleging torture are traitors or dissidents with other axes to grind, or whatever — but none of them say that torture is good or acceptable. And all of them regularly prosecute (albeit sometimes with a slap on the wrist) torturers. And all of them face mass rioting and civil disobedience whenever allegations of torture surface.. especially the case in China.
To the best of my knowledge, the US, Israel and a handful of Islamic countries are the only ones that have sought in recent years to legitimize the use of torture, with a handful of others that renounce torture but still use corporal punishment (notably Singapore and Japan).
Not only has shrubco sought to perpetuate an official policy of torture, but now the current president has suggested that torturers should be let off the hook without even the slap-on-the-wrist prosecutions that are the typical fate of torturers in some of the countries considered to be among the worst traditional offenders.
oh wow.. she was like 5 miles away….
I play poker.
I have played with some of the best,
Obama is better.
Think back to the last two years.
Look at the pundits and the Villagers and the political experts.
Look who’s sitting in the Oval Office.
He’s a slow-player extraordinaire.
He taught Constitutional law fer-gawdsake.
He knows the President doesn’t determine charges to be filed.
Be patient. Watch Cheney melting down on national TeeVee defending TORTURE. That’s called reeling ‘em in. And you’ve got pocket aces. Or better.
Which post did you read? Kneejerk hyperbole doesn’t seem to be a fair response to the post at the top of my screen, but chacon a son gout!
Obama doesn’t prosecute. The Attorney General does. Obama never once said that those who defined torture or who authorized the use of torture would not be immune from prosecution.
I think the CIA officials will turn on Cheney & Bush and the rest of the Cabal and will come forward (WITH IMMUNITY from the AG) and will testify against them once charges are brought forth.
Take lemons, make lemonade, and exploit the shining opportunity to talk about Darfur. At the Jewish community observance we had cards to write to Obama in our programs.
No.
I’m saying (as Southern Dragon noted @10) that Obama is clearly no Truman.
A US president giving a speech remembering the holocaust, right after affirming the “just following orders” defense for torturers and thus repudiating the work of the court at Nuremberg, is something I never thought I’d see.