Letters - The Uproar Over the C.I.A. and Torture - NYTimes.com
LinkLetters
The Uproar Over the C.I.A. and Torture
Published: April 18, 2009
To the Editor:
Re “Memos Spell Out Brutal C.I.A. Mode of Interrogation” (front page, April 17) :
President Obama has decided that the C.I.A. employees involved in the torture of terrorism suspects will not be prosecuted and has justified his position by stating that “this is a time for reflection, not retribution.”
I find it hard to believe that a man as intelligent as Mr. Obama, who once taught constitutional law, would equate the pursuit of justice with retribution. It makes it appear as if his decision is one of political expediency.
If holding the C.I.A. operatives accountable for violating federal or international laws is retribution, then the prosecution of ordinary citizens for crimes is also retribution.
The president does not have the authority to be selective about who should or should not be charged with a crime, and he has made a grievous error by confusing the pursuit of justice with retribution or retaliation.
If the president reached his conclusion not to prosecute because the C.I.A. agents were merely following orders, I would remind him that that defense did not hold up at the Nuremberg trials. Those involved must be tried and held accountable regardless of the political consequences.
Seeking justice is moving forward, not backward. The whole world is watching.
Chase Webb
Gresham, Ore., April 17, 2009
•
To the Editor:
The overall idea put forth on Thursday by torture apologists that the C.I.A. and other government employees were only following Department of Justice legal opinions and essentially didn’t know that waterboarding and other tortures they committed were illegal and wrong is complete nonsense.
Why was torture only whispered about throughout government in hushed, embarrassed tones? Why did the F.B.I. open a “war crimes file”? Why did the news of Abu Ghraib immediately shame all Americans?
It’s true, and proved repeatedly in social psychology experiments, that otherwise good people will tend to conform to authority. It’s true that people, under such circumstances, often fail to listen to their consciences. But don’t conflate this obedience factor with not being able to appreciate the wrongfulness.
In choosing to appease powerful interests by trying to sweep this horrible wrongdoing under the rug, President Obama undoubtedly had to overcome the pangs of his own conscience.
Coleen Rowley
Apple Valley, Minn., April 17, 2009
The writer is the retired F.B.I. agent who exposed F.B.I. lapses that led to the 9/11 attacks.
•
To the Editor:
Expressing my personal views based solely on the public record, I believe that President Obama should not sanction impunity for high-ranking government officials who approved or facilitated the use of torture.
Although licensed legal or medical professionals who aided and abetted torture certainly should at the very least be disciplined for their role in war crimes and crimes against humanity, the principal focus of the needed criminal investigation should be on the policy-making officials and advisers at the highest levels of our government — the White House, the Departments of Justice and Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency — who authorized or enabled such criminal conduct. This would also include many lawyers who provided legal cover for lawlessness.
Using torture is not merely an ethics violation. It is also a domestic and international crime, and Judge Baltasar Garzón in Spain should not be the only one investigating these reprehensible actions with an eye to criminal proceedings. The United States should finally put its own house in order.
John S. Koppel
New York, April 17, 2009
The writer is a career attorney (1981-present) on the appellate staff of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
