Latest Column

I don't know about you Joe but if I could pick any word to make the last word on this administration it would be "Mulligan.". Lord knows we would be much better off if we could just erase the last eight years and do it over.

It was a good piece, Joe. At least you held George W. Bush responsible by name, and at least you didn't hide behind the (happy) constraint of journalistic conventions to avoid the word "torture" when talking about these acts like virtually all of your colleagues.
.
I take issue with the following:
.
"I would say that there's some theoretical exposure here" to a war-crimes indictment in U.S. federal court, says Gene Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. "But I don't think there's much public appetite for that sort of action."
.
You know, just how does he determine that? What does he know, really, about "public appetite" I ask you. Teaching military justice doesn't exactly lend itself to understanding exactly what the "public appetite" may be. What is his agenda, anyway? He has no standing, in my book, to talk about the "public appetite."
.
"More likely, Obama will simply make sure — through his excellent team of legal appointees — that no such behavior happens again."
.
Oh really now? An excellent team of legal appointees NOW is going to stop criminal behavior in the FUTURE? How does that work, Joe? If anything, Cheney and Rumsfeld learned from their Nixon days, and again during Iran Contra, that Washington will forgive ANY crime, no matter how reprehensible, from high government officials. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY KNEW THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH THIS? Because you, the elite of Washington who rub shoulders with the powerful don't want to see people of your social class be called to account for their very real crimes. When some of these people finally, at long last, pay a price for their crimes, is when "such behavior" will not happen again.
.
So you advocate letting these people get away with it, do I have you right, Joe?
.

While I would be intrigued with Cheney pinched fly fishing in Norway, I'd find it more entertaining to have him wisked away from Jackson Hole blindfolded and through rendition taken to another country for intensive questioning (can you say waterboarding). Since he has said he is not part of the executive or legislative branches of government, no need for Secret Service protection is there?
.
Well, I can dream, I suppose. Nice parting shots, Joe.

I thought you might consider torture inevitable/accidental, but am glad you do not.

Bravo, Joe! Well said.
.
Reading your article today, and listening to Philippe Sands discuss his book, "Torture Team", on "Fresh Air" yesterday, it is hard not to imagine that the USA will be paying for the hubris of the Bush Administration for at least a generation to come.
.
And, while we probably to not have the desire to prosecute our own government officials for the heinous crimes they have committed, it would be a fitting coda to know that no one in the Bush Administration will ever be able to leave US soil for fear of arrest in a foreign country....

IF we do not punish them severely for their actions we are only enabling people to do the same thing again in the future. I don't really fear it from the Obama administration but the whole point of punishing them would be as a warning that their actions have repercussions. The only way to move forwards is to deal with the past, not to ignore it, that way only leads to us repeating our mistakes.

Torture is one kind of intentionally disproportionate self-defense. You ought to reconcile your more relaxed views on the larger category, Joe.

It should be noted that there was, and is, no evidence that these techniques actually work. Experienced military and FBI interrogators believe that torture leads, more often than not, to fabricated confessions.
.
It's actually worse than this. The techniques that SERE was supposed to train people to resist are not designed to obtain information. They are designed to force people to sign false confessions.
.
The use of torture is never designed to elicit information.

If Barack Obama really wanted to be cagey, he could pardon Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for the possible commission of war crimes. Then they'd have to live with official acknowledgment of their ignominy in perpetuity.
.
Heavens to Betsy. Now THAT will show them.
.
BTW, if you haven't voted for Bob Fertik question at change.gov, now's the time.
.
"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor - ideally Patrick Fitzgerald - to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?"
Bob Fertik, New York City
.
This is the leading question in the other issues category. Sign up, log in, and you can keep it in the lead.
.
This is, of course, the response to the Serious Professor's "public appetite" remark. The only absence of appetite is among the enablers, and the complicit.

Personally I think the best way to deter future administrations from doing these types of things would be to hand out some indictments to top level officials, including Cheney and Rumsfield. Knowing that a former V.P. had to cool his heels in prison for war crimes would hopefully give any future officials pause. And cudos for naming Bush as responsible. I don't like how so many media outlets have called out Rumsfield, Cheney, Gonzales et all, but seem to imply that Bush was ignorant of the whole thing. He was their boss and President of the United States, not some innocent bystander as these events unfolded. If anyone ever is tried for these crimes, Bush needs to be standing right there and get charged to. Not that I ever expect it to happen.

Domestic policy is also an epic fail.
.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016349.php

Bush had a domestic policy, Jayackroyd? Other than spying on US citizens? I'm shocked, just shocked to learn about this.

.
JK: It stands at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency.
.
Yes. Even if disregarding the Geneva Convention's prohiition of torture was the only dark spot on an otherwise benign Presidency, it would still be - by itself - horrendous. But add to that the multiple failures of governance, and the Bush '43 years are abolutely a 'national embarassment' from which we will be digging ourselves out for decades.
.

Considering how twisted the debate over Bushco war crimes has been, this piece was refreshingly candid. I know some will be dissatisfied with some of the hedging, hemming and hawing (see James, Los Angeles #2) but when we consider that the source is Joe (I have neither the time nor inclination) Klein, then we realize that this actually qualifies a searing indictment.
.
Welcome to the bright side.

Thank you for this brave piece, Mr. Klein.
.
I appreciate your comdemnation of these acts, however, I have a question for you. You write: There is, I'm told, absolutely no interest on the part of the incoming Obama Administration to pursue indictments against its predecessors. The admin-elect's interest is probably tied to the "public appetite" to pursue the matter. This perception is, of course, influenced by media coverage. As such, my question is (and the one I wish you answered in the piece): Do you believe that Obama should investigate possible illegality and why?
.
The presidential election showed that a significant segment of society distrusts what they consider "elite media"- NYT, WAPO, liberal blogs, McClatchy, Salon, etc. Most articles that ask/answer this question (and discuss extraordinary rendition) are from these "suspect" sources. As a known and respected columnist for Time, I believe your answer would be valuable to the debate and possibly influence the public appetite.

Bush had a domestic policy, Jayackroyd?
.
Income redistribution was at the heart of it. From the bottom two quintiles to the top percentile.

Yeah, but that policy was a continuation of Reagan's from 1980.

.
Do you have much appetite for the law, Joe?
.

.
Principle I
.
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
.
Principle II
.
The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.
.
Principle III
.
The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
.
Principle IV
.
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

.
A nation is defined not just by its actions but also by the principles it affirms and rejects. And the only way to argue that Bush officials shouldn't be held accountable for the crimes they ordered and authorized is to make clear that one does not actually subscribe to these core principles of Western justice. There's value in having our political establishment be forced to declare that so openly.
- Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Hopefully as the disaster that was Bush II sinks in the American public can fully push beyond the notion that the best qualifications a President can have is a mediocre intellect coupled with a staggering lack of curiosity or creativity. Please no more Presidents who are "just like the rest of us".

Dirks, I know some will be dissatisfied with some of the hedging, hemming and hawing (see James, Los Angeles #2)
.
Harrumph.

James, LA: I think Joe Klein is an incrementalist. I give him props for his sea change during 2008. I applaud your attempts to engage him on this. He reads the comments but never engages the commenters. I think Joe doesn't have the desire to cause his employer professional idigestion.

.
Andy from MA: Bush had a domestic policy...?
.
Well, yes:
.
(1) Fail to govern effectively
(2) Turn failed government functions over to friends in the private sector
(3) Profit!
.
Given those objectives, Bush has been a spectacular success.

Considering that the (American) press has barely reported on the issue of torture (and generally won't use the term), the "public appetite" might be less than it otherwise would be. What % of the population still believes that Abu Ghraib was the work of "a few bad apples"?
-
1. Break the law.
2. Suppress information just long enough for the media to get bored.
3. When it does leak, push the blame down the chain of command.
4. If anyone does get indicted, pardon them.
5. Beltway consensus: That was the past. It's time to look forward.
6. Ensure that it "never happens again."
7. Repeat.

The other great tragedy regarding the Bush years is how the Washington Establishment (people in the press, think tanke intellectuals. talking heads, the Judiciary and Legislative branches of Government) enabled the Bush disaster. Most of these people still have not had the decency to acknowledge their roles in this debacle.

Well, it's a close call. I'm not sure how you weigh the immorality of torturing some people as being more or less despicable than the outright killing of thousands, when each was undertaken primarily to gain or preserve personal power.