It shouldn’t take a genius to point
out that getting a new publicity photo is not a good reason to conduct
a low altitude flight of Air Force One—complete with a F-16 fighter
jet in hot pursuit—over the skyscrapers and monuments of New York
City. But there you have it, on April 27; officials at the White
House proving that sense ain’t always so common after all. And
while most New Yorkers experienced a collective feeling of ‘here we
go again, more in-flight drama in the skies above Manhattan,’ my particular
déją vu skewed more toward the realization that I had seen this kind
of bureaucratic bullshit before.
Under President George Bush,
an automatic instinct for secrecy coupled with an ignorant-as-all-hell
aptitude for incompetence seemed to be two characteristics that went
hand-in-hand. And upon reading the Obama White House’s report
regarding the flyover, I realized these traits had made their way
into the current administration. Basically, senior officials concluded
the flyover was a minor photo-op event that would barely go noticed
by anyone except the “local press” and therefore saw no need to
notify the public. Sound reasoning, unless you factor in a) a
747 jumbo jet careening over landmark buildings, b) an already agitated
populace just primed for panic and c) the fact that “local press”
in New York often means media giants like CNN and NBC.
When news broke that the publicity
stunt caused hundreds of people in both downtown Manhattan and New Jersey
to evacuate their buildings in fear of a terror attack, President
Barack Obama was reportedly furious at his own administration’s
embrace of Bush-style secrecy and ineptitude. In response, he
not only publically assured America this would never happen again but
also ordered institutional changes to prevent such occurrences
and accepted the resignation
of the official who oversees such operations.
Bravo, Bammers! There is something
refreshing about a president who realizes that simply telling government
officials not to repeat foolish behavior isn’t always enough to ensure
that they in fact don’t. Now if only Obama would apply this
same process of matching symbolic words with systemic reform and
punitive measures to how he plans to handle Bush administration officials
who devised and carried out the CIA torture program, maybe he’d be
on to something.
“But wait!” says you, “Why are
you being such a predictable liberal and harping about torture?
I thought this was a column on good governance.”
“It is!” says I. For you see, nowhere was the absence of a good and effective government more keenly felt during Bushian times than in the agencies charged with protecting America from all manner of threats. Even Republicans like John McCain and Donald Rumsfeld agree with Obama that the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay geometrically increased al-Qaeda’s ability to recruit and train terrorists.
To correct this, candidate
Obama declared to the world that the U.S. would no longer use the so-called
“enhanced interrogation techniques” approved by George Bush and
Dick Cheney. Then, on only his first full day as President,
he followed up his words by issuing an executive
order stating interrogation methods used by any
federal agent must comply with both US law and international treaties
forbidding torture. So we have the words, we have the reform,
but to date, not one punitive measure has been taken against any official.
In fact, Obama has gone out of his way to preclude a federal investigation
and probable prosecution of those involved with the torture program,
saying he doesn’t intend to “criminalize policy differences” nor
risk the disruption of the CIA’s intelligence gathering such actions
might cause.
Up till recently, I’ve agreed with
the President. Prosecuting former Bush officials could
cause a legislative shit show on Capitol Hill and embolden Republicans to
shut down major initiatives around health and climate change. And
investigating CIA employees could lead to a demoralized agency
more concerned with covering its own ass than protecting the country.
And even if we were to lock up every Bush official for their water boarding
ways, there’s no guarantee that would prevent a future administration
from trying to find even more creative means to torture detainees.
And if we have to choose between proving a point to Darth Cheney and
getting universal health care, better to lead by example and choose
the latter.
But as we’ve now all seen with the
brilliance behind flying Air Force Once just 1000 feet above Ground
Zero, it’s not what a future White House official might approve but
what stupidity this current administration might sanction.
I don’t doubt for a second Bammers’ sincerity that he is opposed
to all forms of torture. But I also have no doubt there are some
sadistic sycophant holdovers from the Bush days hanging out at CIA headquarters
who not only think that torture actually works but given Obama’s reticence
to prosecute, they can develop new “enhanced” interrogation methods
without anyone noticing.
There is sound reasoning behind not taking steps that would cause an unbreakable political logjam. But if Bill Clinton can create a bazillion new jobs while fighting off impeachment charges, then Obama cannot shirk off the government’s dual responsibilities of effective management and accountability. And yes, we should not unduly disturb the CIA’s important work but we should not presume that individual agents are too important to fail (it’s not like they’re some CEO at a bailed-out bank, after all).
While I know Obama is no genius, surely he is smart enough to see by refusing to investigate and prosecute those who committed war crimes in our name that he himself is creating the false choice between the rule of law and good governance. As luck would have it, those are two characteristics that just happen to go hand-in-hand no matter which party occupies the White House.
