Obama, State Secrets, and Torture Memos: What If?

Yesterday I wrote that I hoped Obama would stand up to Senate Republicans seeking to delay confirmations in exchange for a commitment to bury Bush-era torture memos. In short, I wrote, exposing the America's dirty little secrets on this particular subject is a good thing to fight for. On further consideration, I actually think it's a great thing to fight for. Yes, the documents could be damaging, especially where American credibility is concerned. And yes, such documents could become effective recruitment materials for organizations that seek to do America harm. That said, is there anything in those memos that really shouldn't become public knowledge? The whole world knows that America sanctioned torture and inhumane treatment during the Bush administration. Abu Ghraib, anyone? And if we needed more, well, the Red Cross gave it to us yesterday.

For the Obama administration, this should be a freebie. Release the torture memos, confirm the worst, acknowledge that mistakes were made, and then promise that the new guard will honor commitments to human rights, the Geneva Convention, and moral rectitude.

But what if it's not that simple? For example: A) Very powerful elements may want to suppress the torture memos for what they reveal about the past president, vice president, and other high-level administrators. And B) Very powerful elements may want to suppress the torture memos for what they reveal about presidential powers, more generally.

What if Obama or the legal minds that protect the office of the president do not want to release the memos? That's certainly the case with Obama's continuation of Bush-era "state secrets" arguments surrounding warrantless wiretapping.

Now, Obama himself may not wish for such surveillance to continue against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. Similarly, he may not want to keep torture memos concealed for the sake of being able to torture. But at the same time, might it be in the interest of the office of the president to suppress all that data for the simple matter of retaining maximum mobility? After all, any reductions in presidential powers would set precedents that could be applied in other, unforeseen situations. What legal or strategic adviser to the office will encourage the president to sacrifice these tools or to tie his hands in the future? And how much does Obama really want to argue about such things?

Senate Republicans Take Appointees* Hostage, Demand Ransom

Kevin Drum links to a report that Senate Republicans are holding Obama appointees hostage in exchange for burial of Bush-era torture memos. Drum:

These memos must be real time bombs. So much material has been released already, both officially and otherwise, that I've long assumed we already knew everything the Bush administraton had done — in broad terms, anyway. But apparently not. If these memos just confirmed our use of things like stress positions and black sites, it's hard to imagine they'd prompt such ferocious opposition. There must be some truly new — and truly gruesome — disclosures in them.

Jeebus. Emphasis mine. (With apologies to Kevin for simply stealing his links.)

I'm of two minds about this. Obviously, it's despicable politics. But that' s pretty redundant, right? So it comes down to politics versus ethics. I don't want to see good nominees sacrificed as pawns in an epic chess match. At the same time, I do want to see Obama take a stand on this. This guy, as both a candidate and a president, has proven that he can take his message to the people. And congressional Republicans start from a disadvantage--call it a popularity gap. If Obama were to stand up and say "I promised transparency, and I intend to fulfill that promise to the American people," then I think the Senate Repubs are in a bind.

Of course, Republicans can make the White House absolutely miserable and tie up confirmations that should have been completed ages ago. But then again, they've been doing that since day one, right? I'd link, but there are too many examples. Just search "senate confirmation delays" and see what comes up. Clinton, Holder, Lynn, Hill, Goolsbee, Rouse, Holdren, Duckworth, and I'm missing several. I mean, come on. Republicans in the Senate have made clear that they are not interested in working with this president. They've shown a record, bad-faith willingness to obstruct. Republicans have not been this unpopular in a very long time, if ever, and the GOP strategy seems to be to double down. So why not take them on? This is big, torture memos. This might just be the good fight.

*Correction: An early version of this post mistakenly identified "cabinet-level appointees," when in fact these are simply legal appointees but not members of the president's cabinet.