Jon Perr is, of course, correct when he points out that “If, as President Obama so casually admits, ‘we tortured some folks,’ then we have to prosecute some folks, too.” We can all come up with good excuses for why we haven’t prosecuted anyone. But, we’re still obligated to do it. I’m glad that the New York Times will no longer equivocate and prevaricate when it comes to calling torture “torture,” but their unwillingness to take a stand was nothing compared to our government being unwilling to take a stand. Looking back, it didn’t even buy President Obama any good will. At best, it prevented a war with the Intelligence Community that no sensible president would welcome. But being afraid, however sensibly, is not a legal excuse for allowing violations of the law to go unpunished.
The “landscape” may have “shifted” under the feet of the New York Times, but it will surely shift under the current administration once posterity goes to work. Future generations will not give a single shit why it might have made some sense not to prosecute people in the middle of one of biggest financial collapses in our country’s history, nor will they care about Obama’s rhetoric about bringing the country together rather than tearing it apart. All they will want to know is why we allowed people to torture folks and get away with it.
That’s because the vagaries of the day pass away, but the principle against torture will not.
