The Bright Line

What Digby said:

I'm not trying to get ahead of myself. But Brennan is being talked up as the replacement for Michael McConnell and that's potentially problematic. If Obama comes out and explicitly says that there will be no more use of the techniques Greenwald lists, or anything else that can be construed as torture, and makes sure that his subordinates know he means exactly that, then I'm not quite as worried about the effects of this on foreign policy. But if he tries to split the baby or compromise on it, then he will automatically lose a huge portion of his moral authority both at home and abroad.

They could just go back to secretly torturing and spying as the government did in the past, but after all this --- and the political ramifications if it got out --- let's hope not. And anyway, that's not what the intelligence types want. They want immunity for torture (excuse me, "enhanced interrogation") and they want it to be public. I don't think there's any going back.

Torture is not negotiable and it can't be redefined or "smoothed out" or anything else. This one is a bright line. I give Obama the benefit of the doubt at this point, of course --- nothing's been announced. But I'm nervous. The institutional pressure is going to be acute and I'm not reassured by the presence of people like John Brennan. The fact that he isn't as bad as Dick Cheney just isn't good enough.

What Obama said, on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General:

I did not hear Mr. Gonzales repudiate two and a half years of official U.S. policy which has defined torture so narrowly that only organ failure and death would qualify. A policy that he himself appears to have helped develop the dubious legal rationale for. Imagine that. If the entire world accepted the definition contained in the Department of Justice memos, we can only imagine what atrocities might befall our American POWs. How, in a world without such basic constraints would we feel about sending our sons and daughters to war? How, if we are willing to rationalize torture through legalisms and semantics, can we claim to our children, and the children of the world, that America is different, and represents a higher moral standard?

This policy isn't just a moral failure, it's a violation of half a century of international law. Yet while Mr. Gonzales' job was White House Counsel, he said nothing to the President.

He showed no ability to speak with responsible moral clarity then, and he's indicated that he still has no intention to speak such truths now. During his recent testimony, he refused to refute a conclusion of the torture memo which stated that the President has the power to override our laws when acting as Commander-in-Chief. Think about that -- the nation's top law enforcement officer telling its most powerful citizen that if the situation warrants, he can break the law from time to time.

The truth is, Mr. Gonzales has raised serious doubts about whether, given the choice between the Constitution and the President's political agenda, he would put our Constitution first. And that is why I simply cannot support his nomination for Attorney General.

I tend to believe someone who (a) taught Con Law and (b) made such a sweeping declaration about international law means what he says. The fact that the people with the relevant experience necessary to the transition are tainted by association with the prior regime's policies is not surprising or overly worrying to me. The question is, does the President-elect maintain the position he took as a candidate, or not? I'm betting yes.