I've said that I'm cautiously optimistic about the likelihood that the Obama Administration will end Bush's policy of "enhanced interrogations," although less so since learning about Obama adviser John Brennan's past and his potential role in the Obama Administration. At the same time, I've argued that people shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he won't prohibit torture on the basis of conflicting press reports, as Eugene Robinson seems to assume today:
Obama's clarity on the issues of Guantanamo and torture stands in contrast to his necessary vagueness about how he will deal with the economic crisis. Torture is wrong today and will still be wrong tomorrow, whereas today's economic panacea can be tomorrow's drop in the bucket. Who would have thought that these "war on terror" issues would be the easy part for the new president?
Bush was just as "clear" in his public statements about torture declaring famously "we do not torture...we will aggressively pursue [terrorists], but we will do so under the law." The point is that public statements are important for drawing lines but are meaningless unless the same hard lines are drawn in policy and practice. To give Obama credit for having ended a policy of torture before he takes office is just as silly as claiming unequivocally that he has no intention of doing so. Giving Obama credit for doing the right thing before he does it eliminates the ability of torture opponents to pressure Obama to, in fact, do the right thing.
--A. Serwer
