The Obama Justice Department: Illegality of Torture “Not Clearly Established”

Nah - the U.S. doesn’t condone torturing prisoners.

In the 2008 presidential primary, Michelle Obama evoked criticism for suggesting she had not always felt proud of her country. This morning I’m confessing that I’ve had my moments of shame as a U.S. citizen. One of those moments occurred in 2004 when the first photos surfaced that depicted the horrific abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

An editorial in this morning’s NY Times revisits the torture issue:

Bush administration officials came up with all kinds of ridiculously offensive rationalizations for torturing prisoners. It’s not torture if you don’t mean it to be. It’s not torture if you don’t nearly kill the victim. It’s not torture if the president says it’s not torture.

In its final paragraph the Times editorial reveals a conflict between President Obama’s opposition to the use of torture and his administration’s shameful waffling on the issue:

President Obama, much to his credit, has forsworn the use of torture, but politics and policy makers change and democracy cannot rely merely on the good will of one president and his aides. Such good will did not exist in the last administration. And the inhumane and illegal treatment of detainees could make a return in a future administration unless the Supreme Court sends a firm message that ordering torture is a grievous violation of fundamental rights.

Anyone who doubts the degree of executive branch pliability in this realm needs to consider this: The party that urged the Supreme Court not to grant the victims’ appeal because the illegality of torture was not “clearly established” was the Obama Justice Department.