Obama's promise to "those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution" is sufficiently ambiguous to mean many things to many people. CBS News commentator Andrew Cohen reads it to mean the Obama administration will "not just pass on prosecuting any Bush-era offenders but offer those very same offenders indemnity from prosecution or even Congressional investigation." The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer, on the other hand, is calling for a special prosecutor. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., reiterated his call for a nonpartisan commission of inquiry.
But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., doesn't think prosecutions are precluded by Thursday's announcement. As he put it last night: "As I understand it, [Obama's] decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted." The DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility is in the midst of an ongoing review of the quality of the legal advice given by Bybee, Bradbury, and fellow OLC lawyer John Yoo. But it's worth noting the irony here: We can't touch these lawyers because they weren't doing the actual face-slapping. In fact, just yesterday Spain's attorney general, Candido Conde Pumpido, recommended against prosecuting the six alleged architects of the Bush torture program because the officials cited in the court complaint did not themselves physically carry out the torture. "If action is taken for the crime of mistreating prisoners of war, the complaint should target the actual authors of the crime," he announced.
Having all-but granted immunity to those who actually carried out the torture because they believed they were merely following legal advice, and with the widespread understanding among experts that it's nearly impossible to criminally prosecute lawyers who were merely offering legal advice, the Catch-22 of nonaccountability is almost complete.
But is President Obama right that America has survived its injuries, having had a while to sleep it off? Can we simply put behind us the obscene picture of violence and cruelty painted by the new OLC memos and the 43-page report by the International Committee of the Red Cross publicized last month by Mark Danner? Was the decision to brutalize our prisoners some form of temporary insanity that is, as Obama's Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair put it yesterday, justifiable if looked at within the "context of these past events" and the "horror of 9/11"? Are we OK about government lawyers and medical personnel and the highest-level government officials collaborating to legalize and implement water-boarding next time the "context" and the "horrors" lead us to lose our collective minds?
What we have learned from the new memos and the ICRC report dwarfs the hoodings and humiliations that took place at Abu Ghraib. Yet when we learned of the prisoner abuse there in 2004, it wasn't just vengeful, lefty, America-hating crackpots who were horrified. We all were. What happened in the intervening five years to make feeling sick to your stomach a partisan issue?
President Obama makes forgiving and forgetting sound awfully appealing. The country is in deep economic trouble. The days and weeks after 9/11 were really, really scary. We need our intelligence officials to be able to keep us safe without having to look over their shoulders. Good people shouldn't be punished for the bad legal advice they received. Bygones. But is the short-term comfort of saying we're over it worth the long-term cost of having become torturers and then cavalierly gotten over it? Because the real risk of getting over it is the possibility that it happens all over again.