STAFF EDIT: Obama’s moral test

President Barack Obama’s recent criticism of the Bush administration’s unsavory interrogation techniques calls upon Congress to initiate a bipartisan effort for further investigation. Although Obama is refraining from starting a commission himself and does not explicitly state that he plans to press legal charges against the CIA members of the former administration who imposed torture upon terror detainees, he is demonstrating a more discreet avenue of reproach. In keeping with his credo of looking to the future instead of dwelling on the past, Obama’s indirect punishment of the immorality of the Bush administration is perhaps more effective than an outright legal rebuke.

The scandal is a question of morals in that it seeks to evaluate the morality of the executors of the torturous measures based on the fact that they were following authoritative orders. The answer to this question isn’t an easy one to arrive at ‘- and thus immediately indicting the ‘torturers’ for following orders would be an immoral accusation, making Obama something of a hypocrite. Instead, Obama chose to shed light on an extremely negative and embarrassing situation that happened during his predecessor’s administration, and handle it not with a series of harsh legal hits, but rather with a stern nod to past mistakes and a promise that there will be policy made ensuring they won’t happen again.

In cases like these, one must ask ‘- as Obama likely did when he was deciding on how to handle the torture incidences ‘- whether the ends justify the means. As for the Bush administration, subjecting terror suspects to such inhumane procedures as waterboarding to get them to admit that they themselves had inhumane intentions seems like a means that is incongruous to its desired end. And regarding Obama’s response, a long, difficult, costly production of indictments and trials, possible isolation from the CIA, and a distraction from the current and future problems that face the nation would not make positive means nor positive ends.

The moral soundness of a nation and its leaders is most visible during the worst of times. In contrasting the way the Bush administration handled the interrogation of terrorists with the way Obama handled the products of these crimes, it becomes clear which if the two is the more viable, more moral administration. Along with the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison and the extension of a hand to Cuba, the results of Obama’s sophisticated decision-making regarding the Bush administration’s torturous interrogation will someday, albeit not immediately, be great.