Foreign policy/war crime issues are generally outside the scope of my competency, but sometimes, the facts can speak for themselves. the Department of Justice released its report on John Yoo, the author os the legal torture memos in the Bush administration. Spencer Ackerman points to what (I hope) is the most galling part of the document (on page 70). Here’s the transcript, which is discussing Yoo’s reasoning in overruling torture statutes that limited some executive excesses:
Q: I guess the question I’m raising is, does this particular law really affect the President’s war-making abilities…
A: Yes, certainly.
Q: What is your authority for that?
A: Because this is an option that the President might use in war.
Q: What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? …Is that a power that the President could legally-
A: Yeah. Although let me say this. So, certainly that would fall within the Commander-in-Chief’s power over tactical decisions.
Q: To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?
A: Sure.
According to the report, Yoo then defended his decision to include sections giving the President these broad powers.
It’s sickening to imagine that these sorts of folks were running our country for eight years. James Fallows (via Ezra Klein) says that this document is mandatory civil education reading, the Hiroshima of our modern troubled times.
The “torture years” are now an indelible part of our history. The names Bybee and Yoo will always be associated with these policies. Whether you view them as patriots willing to do the dirty work of defending the nation — the Dick Cheney view, the 24 view, which equates the torture memos with Abraham Lincoln’s imposition of martial law — or view them as damaging America’s moral standing in ways that will take years to repair (my view), you owe it to yourself to read these original documents.
While I, too, am appalled at the Yoo testimony, we have to remember that the US didn’t wipe out just a village (Mai Lai) but cities that were not of military or strategic importance — Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Dresden was sheer vengeance. Hiroshima and Nagaski was using terror tactics to force the Japanese to submission. Yoo’s testimony is small potatoes in comparison and no one is questioning the decision-making in WWII or the people accountable. It was President Truman himself that authorized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That’s awful precedent. There are moral, ethical, and legal problems here that are still not being addressed.
Your points are certainly valid, and obviously Yoo’s malfeasance does not even top the lying that led to Iraq. At the same time, it’s rare in the present day to see such an unobscured defense of unconscionable acts.
What I am outraged about is the failure of the Obama administration to take the oath of office seriously and investigate war crimes as required by law. This is obstruction of justice. Holder and Obama have decided to just put the matter in their back pocket, creating a terrible precedent, just like the things I cited above. This undermines the standing of America and creates a double-standard of justice, one for the victors and another for the vanquished. This reduces justice to revenge.
It’s certainly outrageous, but sadly it’s also consistent with Obama putting political concerns ahead of what is right.