Interesting, even promising in light of how much he's frustrated civil libertarians like me with certain actions, that Obama did the right thing (well mostly) in releasing Bush torture memos yesterday. The immunization of torturers from prosecution is certainly a debatable thing, but good on him for following the rule of law instead of giving in to the no doubt tremendous pressures to hide governmental wrongdoing. And he did not exempt the crafters and signers of these morally repugnant documents from prosecution.
For the critics who already are saying we've given out our "playbook," compromised security, lent al Qaeda a hand, etc., it bears noting that torture still equals torture and is still illegal and morally reprehensible, even when we do it. So I guess that's why they're changing the subject.
Glenn Greenwald offers the following on this debate, with which I could not agree more:
There is an unhealthy tendency to want to make categorical, absolute judgments about the persona of politicians generally and Obama especially ("I like him"/"I don't like him"; "I trust him/I don't trust him") rather than case-by-case judgments about his specific acts. "Like" and "trust" are sentiments appropriate for one's friends and loved ones, not political leaders. A politician who does something horrible yesterday can do something praiseworthy tomorrow. Generally bad people can do good things (even if for ignoble reasons) and generally good people can do bad things. That's why Icare little about motives, which Ithink, in any event, are impossible to know. Regardless of motives, good acts (releasing the torture memos) should be praised, and bad acts (arguing against prosecutions) should be condemned.
