There are a few conclusions to be drawn from the new administration picks in the last couple of days. Dawn Johnsen picked for the Office of Legal Counsel means that Obama will be taking legal advice from someone who sees the OLC as the first line of constitutional accountability for the executive branch, rather than an enabler of imperial lawlessness. She joins attorney general nominee Eric Holder as the second prominent legal voice in the Obama transition to have spoken out forcefully against torture, warrantless wiretapping, and extraordinary rendition.
The pick of Leon Panetta for CIA chief is drawing criticism from some corners because of his lack of experience in intelligence. While as White House chief of staff under Bill Clinton, Panetta had duties relating to intelligence, that's not remotely the same thing as being a longtime agency hand like John Brennan, and I don't think those objections are trivial. But as Spencer Ackerman points out, unlike Brennan, Panetta spoke out forcefully against torture rather than defending it, which may have had something to do with his appointment. (Another interesting note about Panetta: According to Rick Perlstein, the former Republican resigned from Nixon's administration over his appointment of the racist G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court, and then gave Nixon an earful in a speech to the National Education Association afterwards.)
All of which suggests Obama is pretty serious about overturning United States policy on torture, reports from conservative-leaning news outlets notwithstanding. But it's worth considering where these "leaks" came from -- namely from people who sought to pressure the Obama team into acquiescing to Bush terror policies. On some level, the torture supporters were heartened by liberal anxiety over some of Obama's appointments, believing that if Obama endorsed Bush administration policies, they would be somehow vindicated.
All of which is an embrace of a pathetic kind of moral relativism. The relevant Bush policies would be criminal and unconstitutional whether or not Obama chose to, or chooses to continue them. Based on Obama's personnel choices, It doesn't look like he will continue torturing, and it doesn't look like torture advocates will be able to assuage their guilty consciences by looking to the Obama administration for validation. Perhaps it will give them "pause."
On some level, this represents a rather substantive victory for vocal civil libertarians like Glenn Greenwald, who may have nudged the Obama team in the right direction. All the more reason not to stay quiet now.
-- A. Serwer
