The Radical Secularist

Amidst the controversy over President Obama’s decision to declassify Justice Department memos pertaining to CIA interrogative tactics, MSNBC  ’Countdown’ host, Keith Olberman criticized the president for excusing the actions of those involved in the alleged torture of al Qaeda suspects, on the ground that they were made to believe that their actions were consistent with the law.  Video. Although I’m not one to bestow praises upon journalists whose only claim to political pundicy is a stellar career in sports journalism, Olberman, dare I say, is right.  Not only is he right but he presents an articulate and fairly well-reasoned justification for why the President should reconsider his previously stated decision not to further investigate and, where evidence of wrongdoing, prosecute those responsible for the licensing, encouraging, and enacting of torture.  Olbermann rightly contends that we not only have moral reasons for doing so, but also prudential one’s.  If we limit ourselves to the moral condemnation of those responsible for the licensing and/or enacting of torture, we are liable to send the wrong message: it may be morally wrong, but it is for all intents and purposes permissable.  Unfortunately, neither the pangs of conscience nor the threat of moral shame inspires fear sufficient to deter people from moral wrongdoing.  This is a major reason why we have laws.  Failing to punish not just the moral but the legal wrongdoings of those responsible for torture, as Oblermann rightly implies, will send the wrong message, by making a mockery of the law.  If the President is as committed as he oft says he is to doing not only the morally right thing (putting a stop to torture) but also the prudential thing (helping to prevent the repetition of past wrongs), he must have  investigated and, where demanded, prosecuted suspected wrongdoing.

JPM