Will Holder investigate Bush's torture regime? If so, how far will he go? (Likely not far enough.)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

By now, I suspect, many of you have read, or at least read about, Newsweek's article on Attorney General Eric Holder and the possible appointment of "a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices" (i.e., torture). Like Glenn Greenwald, I was, initially, optimistic. Finally, I thought. It's about time. And, like Creature, I was also firmly in "the I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it camp."

Well, it looks like Glenn is right:

New facts about what that investigation would entail and, more importantly, would exclude -- facts added by [yesterday]'s Washington Post -- strongly suggest it's the opposite. At least if that article is to be believed -- and it seems clear that Holder dispatched his allies to leak his plans in order to gauge reaction -- the investigation will only target "rogue" CIA interrogators who exceeded the limits of what John Yoo authorized, and would not include high-level policy makers who authorized the torture tactics and implemented America's torture regime.

What I thought was that Obama and Holder were playing more of the good cop, bad cop routine that has come to characterize Obama's PR handling of key issues. (It's usually Obama and Emanuel.) In this case, Obama was, as president, remaining above the partisan fray, not only refusing to commit to an investigation but also seemingly against one altogether, talking up bipartisanship and the need to look to the future, not to the past. Ultimately, it's Holder's call, though, more or less, and that has afforded Obama some protection. If there's an investigation, it's because Holder wants one, not Obama, because it's what the law requires (or demands), or at least because the country's chief law enforcement official (Holder) thinks it's the right thing to do, regardless of political calculation.

But now what?

"I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," said Holder. "But that can't be a part of my decision." No, but while he has "the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws," he is also "part of the president's team." And it's not at all clear that the president and his team want to go ahead with an investigation into what happened under his predecessor, at least not a serious one, one that examines not just what "rogue" CIA interrogators did but what was authorized and by whom at the very top. Indeed, that an investigation would only target "rogue" agents is despicable. What it suggests is that "the president's team" thinks that what is needed is not the truth but some effective scapegoating. For if the whole sordid mess can be blamed on a few "rogue" agents, just like a few "rogue" troops were blamed for what happened at Abu Ghraib without a full accounting of who authorized what, then Bush and Cheney and their various minions will essentially be let off the hook. Not only that, but "the president's team" would effectively be concluding that what was authorized was not actually improper or illegal. Who knew that Obama would be such a staunch supporter of Cheney and Yoo?

Well, we're not there quite yet, but the signs aren't exactly encouraging. It's not that I don't think that Obama and Holder are honourable men, it's that I think they'll let partisan political considerations trump doing what is right for America. And, make no mistake, uncovering the truth is what is right for America, and for the world beyond. An ongoing suppression of the truth, when so much was hoped for from Obama, would only foster cynicism at home and abroad and increase the likelihood of the very same abuses happening again and again in future, because the abusers would effectively have gotten away with it. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, after all.

**********

One other point, which Creature touched upon. The current media take, driven by Republican spin (and, make no mistake, Republicans are behind what the media are saying), is that an investigation into what happened under Bush would increase partisan rancour and doom Obama's domestic agenda (health care, global warming, energy, the economy, etc.). What it suggests is that Republicans are more than willing to play ball with Obama now and that Obama, and Democrats generally, delve into the past at their own, and their own agenda's, peril.

Nonsense, I say.

Republicans aren't playing ball, as we saw with Obama's economic stimulus package. They're already partisan -- and they're already trying to torpedo every last major part of Obama's domestic agenda, from cap-and-trade on carbon emissions to a "public option" on health care. It is hardly possible that an investigation into Bush's torture regime would make Republicans less likely to support Obama or render Obama's agenda less likely to succeed. If Obama succeeds, it will not be because Republicans played ball, and supported him, but in spite of their rigid opposition to his agenda.

So don't buy the spin. This has nothing to do with Obama's agenda and everything to do with what must be done to uncover the truth about a terrible chapter in recent American history.

What the media are reporting is a threat, that's all, a threat that can't be backed up. I am not terribly optimistic, at least not at the moment, but I am hopeful that Obama and Holder know this to be the case.

If nothing else, at least an investigation, even one with a weak mandate, would get the ball rolling. (For more on this, and on Holder's independence from Emanuel and Axelrod, see Scott Horton.)