"America Doesn't Torture", Ctd.

Yesterday I wrote about how I was relieved to hear on 60 minutes that Obama plans to end torture as U.S. policy. It was clear and unequivocal and it is still heartening. But, I also noted that John Brennan, former head of the National Counter Terrorism Center is in possibly in line for Director of the C.I.A. and has supported torture in the past. This morning I thought it would be enough if Obama were to make himself clear. Maybe it will be, but Andrew Sullivan reminds me that this is such a key issue, and such an issue rife with potential for equivocation, that appointing a person associated with the Bush administration on this, even if the extent of the association and support is probably not the way to go. I say probably because I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Obama -- he seems to be assembling a "team of rivals" cabinate, a team that will allow for diverse opinions, so perhaps he wants someone to challange him even on controversial intelligence and torture.

But, still, I am a little queasy: torture is a bright line for me. It's not something to be debated. It can only be rejected completely and in crytal clear ways. Some of Brennan's interviews (like this one with CBS's Harry Smith, which can be found on Glenn Greenwald's site) don't give me hope:

Mr. BRENNAN: Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as enhanced interrogation tactics, and only a small proportion of those have in fact been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures.

SMITH: Right. And you say some of this has born fruit.

Mr. BRENNAN: There have been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has in fact used against the real hard-core terrorists. It has saved lives. And let's not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the deaths of 3,000 innocents.

These are exactly the same types of answers supporters of torture have been giving for years.

Also, there's this article from the AP on how Bush officials who authorized torture are unlikely to see prosecution from an Obama Justice Department. This is completely expected. As a very practical and political person, Obama would not want his administrations energies sucked up by something so controversial as that, especially since it would probably lead to a direct confrontation with some of the most powerful former Bushies. I'm not sure how I feel about this myself: I don't want Obama's administration absrobed by this one issue so much it can't accomplish anything, but I think getting to the bottom of this is part what it means to live under the rule of law, plus it would set a precendent making it harder for future administrations to abuse power. I guess I think it should happen, but I won't cry a lot if it doesn't.