Glenn Greenwald - "Why are we even having a "debate" over whether the President has the authority to torture people?"

Glenn Greenwald:

During the Bush-era torture debates, I was never able to get past my initial incredulity that we were even having a "debate" over whether the President has the authority to torture people.  Andrew Sullivan has responded to some of the questions I posed about his defense of Obama's assassination program, and I realize now that throughout this whole assassination debate, specific legal and factual issues aside, my overarching reaction is quite similar:  I actually can't believe that there is even a "debate" over whether an American President -- without a shred of due process or oversight -- has the power to compile hit lists of American citizens whom he orders the CIA to kill far away from any battlefield.  The notion that the President has such an unconstrained, unchecked power is such a blatant distortion of everything our political system is supposed to be -- such a pure embodiment of the very definition of tyrannical power -- that, no matter how many times I see it, it's still hard for me to believe there are people willing to expressly defend it.

 

Moreover, it's almost impossible to ignore how similar are the rhetoric and rationale between (a) Bush supporters who justified presidential torture and (b) Obama supporters who now justify presidential due-process-free assassinations.  Please read Daniel Larison's argument about that, responding to Sullivan's post.  He's exactly right. 

The central rhetorical premise of Bush defenders was that if they just scream "Terrorist!!' and "we're at war!!!!" enough times, and loudly enough, then it would make basic precepts of due process, Constitutional safeguards and the rule of law disappear.  If they demonized their targets enough (this is a really bad Terrorist who wants to kill Americans, with nukes if he can!!) -- or manipulatively invoked 9/11 enough times (note Andrew's prominent display of a smoldering WTC photo strategically placed at the top of his argument) -- then it would mean that anything goes, that no compliance with law is or should be required to do anything to them (a claim that always led to the unanswerable question:  if it's really so obvious that this is a really bad Terrorist, then why not prove it in court?). 

And if you just toss enough insult-strawmen at those who insist upon basic rights even when "we're at war!!," then you can marginalize them to the point of invisibility (I wasn't around in 2003 and thus never got to be accused by Andrew of being a Far-Leftist-pacifist-unwilling-to-fight-the-menace-of-Islamic-Evil, so I guess it's nice that I'm making up for that now.  I always thought a "pacifist" was one who opposes the use of force under all circumstances, even self-defense [a view to which I do not subscribe]; I never knew that one becomes a "pacifist" by believing that the President lacks the power to order his own citizens assassinated far from any battlefield without due process).  Just read Andrew's post to see how reliant he is on these same tactics to justify Obama's program:  quite ironic, given how often he has had these same tactics used against him during his steadfast, eloquent opposition to torture.