Pat Allen: The View from Right Field

September 11, 2001

 

In memory of those who died ten years ago tomorrow, let me re-post what I wrote in 2006 when my son and I visited Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where United 93 crashed.  I am also including a picture I took back then:

 

Shanksville, Pennsylvania

On the way home from our daughter’s graduation from the University of Virginia, my son and I stopped at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. After seeing "United 93," I looked at the website for the memorial there for the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. I saw it was only a few miles from exit 110 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

As a family some or all of us have been to a number of places: Lexington, Kaskaskia and Yorktown; Fort McHenry; Shiloh, Gettysburg, the Wilderness and Appomattox; Pearl Harbor, Normandy and St. Vith; and Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin. So it seemed appropriate to stop at Shanksville.

While temporary and small, the memorial is very impressive. Started originally by volunteers from the area, it still has that feeling to it, which is appropriate, because that is what Flight 93 is all about: Ordinary Americans doing what needed to be done because somebody had to do it and it was up to them.

A big memorial is planned for the site, but since it is a government project, it will be a long time coming. Don’t wait for it. Go now. See the memorial as it is: A simple thing, by Americans for Americans. You won’t be sorry.



 

In memory of those who died ten years ago tomorrow, let me re-post what I wrote in 2006 when my son and I visited Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where United 93 crashed.  I am also including a picture I took back then:

 

Shanksville, Pennsylvania

On the way home from our daughter’s graduation from the University of Virginia, my son and I stopped at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. After seeing "United 93," I looked at the website for the memorial there for the passengers and crew of United Flight 93. I saw it was only a few miles from exit 110 on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

As a family some or all of us have been to a number of places: Lexington, Kaskaskia and Yorktown; Fort McHenry; Shiloh, Gettysburg, the Wilderness and Appomattox; Pearl Harbor, Normandy and St. Vith; and Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin. So it seemed appropriate to stop at Shanksville.

While temporary and small, the memorial is very impressive. Started originally by volunteers from the area, it still has that feeling to it, which is appropriate, because that is what Flight 93 is all about: Ordinary Americans doing what needed to be done because somebody had to do it and it was up to them.

A big memorial is planned for the site, but since it is a government project, it will be a long time coming. Don’t wait for it. Go now. See the memorial as it is: A simple thing, by Americans for Americans. You won’t be sorry.



September 11

For the ninth anniversary of September 11, 2001, let me link back to the post I wrote four years ago on the visit my son and I paid to the memorial near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, to the passengers and crew of United Flight 93.

A Mosque at Ground Zero?

I am not familiar with all of the details regarding the mosque that some people want to build near Ground Zero, so let me just make this more general comment:

After World War Two, Germans went to Coventry, England, to help rebuild the cathedral there that had been destroyed by German bombing during the war. In like kind, English people went to Berlin to help rebuild Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gedächtniskirche), which had been destroyed by the Allied bombing of Berlin. When we visited Coventry and Berlin, we could see that both of these churches are a moving tribute to the spirit of reconciliation between the people whose churches were destroyed and the people who helped rebuild them.

But note what neither the Germans did in England nor the English did in Germany. They did not go to build their own church. They went to help rebuild the church that their bombers had destroyed.

I do not say that there should not be a mosque built at Ground Zero. But I do wonder about the purpose and the intentions of those who would build it.

A Civilian Trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and What Happens If

James Taranto at "Best of the Web Today" considers the possibility that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad might not be convicted or a conviction might be overturned because of problems with some of the evidence (or for some other reason). While Attorney General Holder has said that "failure is not an option," that is a sentiment more appropriate for a football game or a military mission. That is not what prosecutors are supposed to do in a criminal trial (though it does seem to be what Department of Justice attorneys did in getting a conviction of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens just before the 2008 election, a conviction that was later overturned on appeal because of prosecutorial misconduct).

Similarly, it doesn’t seem that President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has thought about this possibility, either, since he is already talking about Sheikh Mohammad being executed.

I get really confused on how it is supposed to make the United States look better to try Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court, as opposed to continuing to hold him at Guantanamo Bay, when the Attorney General is guaranteeing a conviction, and the President’s press secretary is talking about his execution.

Let’s face it. If Sheikh Mohammad is tried in a civilian court, there is a possibility he might not be convicted. After all, John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Why couldn’t that happen to Sheikh Mohammad? Or what if the really good evidence can’t be used because of the way it was obtained?

The Obama administration needs to face up to the fact that if they want to try Sheikh Mohammad in a civilian court, there is a chance he might not be convicted. And if their answer is, if that happens, we will keep him in custody anyway, they need to figure out now that is better than Guantanamo Bay to their supporters around the world.

It’s beginning to seem that they haven’t really thought this through too well.

----------
Update (2/3/10 1:45 pm): Changed "civil" to "civilian" in the fourth paragraph.

Detainees at Guantanamo – No. Detainees in Other Countries – Yes. Huh?

I am confused. When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, he made a big deal about closing down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. It was an embarrassment to the United States, he said, and one of the first things he did upon becoming President was to order that Guantanamo Bay be shut down within a year. We are not going to make that deadline, but he still talks about how important it is that the U.S. shut down the detention facility camp there.

On Monday, however, The Wall Street Journal reported that "[s]ix Yemeni nationals repatriated last month from Guantanamo Bay will remain in the Sana’s [i.e., the capital of Yemen] government’s custody indefinitely as part of a deal reached between the Obama administration and Yemen, U.S. officials said."

I understand that the administration has now decided to suspend the transfer of detainees to Yemen, but the general point here is the same, and I’m confused:

It’s not okay for the United States to hold detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but it is okay to transfer them to other countries, who are going to hold them under conditions no better, if not worse, than those at Guantanamo Bay.

How is this better? How is this more lawful? What is the difference, other than form over substance? Or is that the point? Is it really just about form over substance?.

Connecting Dots

Back in the days after 9/11, a frequent complaint was that the authorities had failed to "connect the dots". The danger was there; the facts were there; but people did not connect the dots.

Which brings me to a couple of recent situations. First, the "flying imams." Back in 2006 six Muslim clerics were taken off of a US Airways flight because their behavior had raised concerns:

"Passengers reported the men had been praying loudly in the terminal, chanting ‘Allah, Allah’ and cursing U.S. policies in Iraq. Once on board, the men took separate seats in the cabin’s front, middle and back. Two imams asked for seat belt extenders, which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a weapon, but left them on the floor. The pilot was told that three of the men had one-way tickets."

After a federal judge held that the defendants could be liable for civil damages and that the authorities did not have probable cause to detain the imams, the airline and the airport effectively gave in and paid the imams to settle the lawsuit. Of course, the defendants denied any wrongdoing in the settlement, but one wonders what some flight crew do will, or what some airline will allow some flight crew to do, next time. Which may be, if you’re cynical, exactly what the imams wanted.

Then there are the shootings last week at Fort Hood. Some of the statements and actions of the gunman, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, were quite disturbing. Wednesday’s Washington Post reported on a talk Major Hasan gave in June of 2007 to a group of fellow Army doctors

"Under the ‘Conclusions’ page, Hasan wrote that ‘Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!’

The final page, labeled ‘Recommendation,’ contained only one suggestion:

‘Department of Defense should allow Muslims [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as "Conscientious objectors" to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.’"

At about the same time, U.S. intelligence agencies picked up Major Hasan’s e-mails to a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen, who was apparently detained by Yemeni authorities from 2006 to 2007 at the U.S.’s request, but they never told the Army about them. Some people have identified the reason as political correctness. But Daniel Henninger in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal suggests another possibility:

"The problem is confusion. The combatants at each end of the spectrum in the war over the war on terror know exactly what they think about surveilling suspected terrorists. But if you are an intel officer or FBI agent tasked with providing the protection, what are you supposed to make of all this bitter public argument? What you make of it is that when you get a judgment call, like Maj. Hasan, you hesitate. You blink.

Now everyone thinks the call was obvious. But it wasn't so obvious before the tragedy. Not if for years you have watched a country and its political class in rancorous confusion about the enemy, the legal standing of the enemy, or the legal status and scope of the methods it wants to use to fight the enemy."

So, what do we have? The flying imams collect money in Minnesota from an airline scared that it would lose a lawsuit and have to pay megabucks in damages because some its employees were just trying to do their job. Major Hasan makes statements that are totally off the wall, while at the same time he is contacting a radical imam in Yemen, but nobody does anything, whether for fear of being called a racist and a bigot or getting accused of breaking the rules on surveillance of potential terrorists by whoever wins the next election.

Connect the dots.

Investigating the CIA

I have not read many of the editorials, op-ed articles, blogs, etc., on the appointment, by Attorney General Eric Holder, of a special prosecutor to investigate possible mistreatment of detainees by CIA interrogators during the George W. Bush administration. I haven’t read them because they are all so predictable that there is little to be learned from them. You know what they say; I don’t need to summarize them or link to them.

What I wanted to say is how I look at this. I don’t know if anybody will agree, but here is how I feel.

First, there were rules set by the Bush administration as to what could be done and what could not be done in questioning detainees. Obviously, there are those on the left who think those rules themselves were illegal and that everybody involved needs to be prosecuted, up to and including Vice President Cheney and even President Bush himself. If that is what you believe, you can stop reading. You won’t come close to agreeing with what I think.

I start from the fact that there were rules. There were things that could be done, and there were also limits as to what could be done. If Attorney General Holder has credible evidence that certain investigators clearly went beyond a reasonable understanding of those rules, then it is proper that there should be an investigation and, depending on what happened, prosecutions.

Please note that I am not talking about violations of some international law that allegedly overrides the rules our government established and that would allow prosecutions of people who did things that were within our rules but were allegedly improper under those other standards. I am talking about people who clearly violated our own rules. If that was done, then we should act. But if what these people did was within a reasonable understanding of the rules in effect at the time of their actions, then they should not be prosecuted now.

But "following rules" isn’t a defense, the left tells us. That is what Nuremberg was all about. You can’t just say "you were following orders". No, I’m sorry. This is not Nuremberg. We are not talking about killing six million Jews. We are not talking about trying to exterminate an entire race of people. We are talking about interrogation techniques, admittedly harsh, used on a limited number of detainees, maybe a couple of hundred, at most, right after the biggest terrorist attack ever on the United States. This is not Nuremberg, and making the comparison is not helpful.

The fact that this comparison is made by some of those who favor an investigation explains some of the concern of those who oppose an investigation. The problem that many of those who are opposed to an investigation have with this whole idea is not that they defend every action taken by every investigator with respect to every detainee. The problem is that they are not sure they can trust the people who have ordered the investigation to actually conduct a fair investigation based a real understanding of not just what we think now, but what we understood then.

They see those on the left who were always opposed to almost any kind of interrogation of detainees, who wanted to give detainees Miranda warnings and lawyers from the very beginning.

But the people who are perhaps even more worrisome are those who have switched sides. Back then they wanted to do whatever was necessary to prevent another attack. They couldn’t understand why we couldn’t "get" Osama Bin Laden, and they criticized President Bush constantly because Osama had not been captured. But as time passed and there was no attacks (on the United States), as memories faded, and, maybe, as the politics shifted, some on the left have forgotten how our nation, how they, felt back then.

The fear of those who oppose Attorney General Holder’s investigation is that men and women who tried to follow the rules six and seven years ago will be prosecuted for doing things that they reasonably believed were allowed under the rules, but that are now deemed unacceptable by people looking at things from eight years of safety, as opposed to the recent memory of 3000 deaths and the very real fear of thousands more.

Unfortunately, the President’s own statements during the campaign last year, and some of the apologies he has felt it was necessary to give about the United States during his overseas trips this year, have fed those fears. Even some of us who accept that there may be a need for an investigation have a very real concern that honorable people, doing what they legitimately thought was allowed and permissible and necessary to defend their country from a very serious threat, will be unfairly judged by Monday morning quarterbacks and second-guessers applying the rules of today to actions of a different and more dangerous time.

Miranda Warnings in Afghanistan; Trials for Detainees

Recent reports have indicated that the Obama administration is having Miranda warnings given to some people who are detained overseas, such as in Afghanistan. Apparently, this is being done so that the failure to give a Miranda warning cannot be used as a reason to exclude from evidence in any possible criminal trial what they say while being interrogated. After this fact was disclosed, an administration spokesman said that the Bush administration did it, too.

A couple of quick comments. First, how can the Obama administration justify anything on the basis that the Bush administration did it? My recollection from the campaign last year is that just about everything the Bush administration was doing in the "war on terror" was evil and illegal and hurting us in the eyes of the world. I didn’t realize the rehabilitation of the Bush administration’s reputation would start so soon. (Sorry for the sarcasm. I couldn’t help it.)

Second, and seriously, am I the only one who thinks that giving Miranda warnings in Afghanistan is really weird? I am having trouble with the concept. And I am having even more trouble believing that the lawyers who wind up defending these people in court won’t find some way to claim that Miranda warnings given in Afghanistan aren’t really adequate – and that some judges won’t agree with them.

But while there was a bit of a brouhaha on the Miranda warning question, another interesting question has been pretty well ignored. The question is this: A number of detainees from Guantanamo Bay are apparently going to be bought to the United States for trial. What happens to those who are found not guilty? When the question was asked to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, he refused to answer, saying "I’m not going to get into hypotheticals …."

Well, it might be a hypothetical question now, but it won’t be soon. There is no doubt that some of those brought to the United State for trial will be found not guilty. A combination of good defense lawyers, evidence that cannot be used at trial because it was "improperly" gathered (under U.S. criminal trial standards) or because its disclosure would reveal intelligence sources or methods, plus the inherent uncertainty of trials means some of the detainees will be found not guilty. So what are we going to do with them?

If they aren’t released (and I am not just talking about releasing them in the United States, I am talking about releasing anywhere), wasn’t the trial a sham in the first place? If it was arbitrary to hold them without a trial, isn’t it even more arbitrary to hold them after they have a trial and are found not guilty? How will the world react if we continue to hold them in that case?

On the other hand, a reply to a blog posting about this situation, said that of course we have to try them. We didn’t just take the Germans out and shoot them after WWII. We had trials at Nuremberg.

But that comment misses both (i) the difference between what we did at Nuremberg and what we are doing here and (ii) the difference between today’s situation and the situation back then. First, the Nuremberg trials dealt with only a small fraction of the German leaders, a few at the very top. The trial of those held at Gitmo would appear to include a lot more people than just that.

More importantly, however, the Nuremberg trials were held after the war was over. The defendants who were found not guilty could be released because they weren’t a danger to us any more. The war was no longer going on. They couldn’t go out and start fighting us again.

That is not true with the detainees at Gitmo. The war (or battle or whatever you want to call it) is still going on. If they are released (and I do not see how they cannot be released if they are found not guilty), there is a good chance they will go out and fight us again. It would be as if we had held the Nuremberg trials in 1943 and those who were found not guilty were released so they could rejoin the German war effort.

Let me mention one other question which makes me wonder whether people have fully thought through the consequences of trying detainees in the American criminal court system. An important part of the American criminal system is the level of proof it takes to convict somebody: beyond a reasonable doubt. We all know that standard from the crime shows on TV, but I wonder if we realize how high that standard really is. It has been said, in explanation of that standard, that it is better to let ten criminals go free than to convict one man wrongly. (See here.)  Others would make the number higher. It is the right standard for our domestic affairs. But what about terrorists out to kill us? Are we willing to let ten, or more, terrorists go free to avoid holding one person wrongly? I understand that it is not right for an innocent person to be held in custody for being a terrorist when he isn’t. But what about all of the innocent people who may be killed by real terrorists who are turned loose because they could not be convicted under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? Not an easy question, and one I hope people are actually thinking about.

Nancy Pelosi and the CIA – A Little Late

The Nancy Pelosi "thing" (i.e., Speaker Pelosi denying that the CIA told her, and others, in the fall of 2002 that the CIA was actually using waterboarding, as opposed to just having it available for future use) blew over while we were on vacation so I probably should not bring it up again, but one part of the story is too interesting to ignore.

The interesting thing is not that Ms. Pelosi claims she heard something different that what other people present in the briefing said they heard. It is not even that a CIA spokesperson contradicted Speaker Pelosi. It is that Leon Panetta, the Director of the CIA, said, in essence, that the CIA was right and that what Ms. Pelosi said was wrong; i.e., that Ms. Pelosi was, in effect, lying about what the CIA told her in September of 2002. (Actually, it would not be "lying" if Ms Pelosi did not understand what the CIA told her back in 2002, but I will get to that later.)

That is mind-boggling. A member of the President’s cabinet issues a public statement saying that the leader of the President’s party in the House of Representatives is not telling the truth. Ms. Pelosi tried to claim it was the Bush Administration’s fault, that they were the ones who misled her, but that is just silly.

I was not around to hear what happened after Mr. Panetta’s statement, but appears that the news media has dropped the issue and has "moved on," as they say, and that Ms. Pelosi is getting away with it. (Not unlike what has happened with respect to Roland Burris.) Amazing.

One final question. What is the explanation for the fact that CIA told selected legislators, including Ms Pelosi, about its use of waterboarding back in September 2002 and that Ms. Pelosi failed to object in any way at the time? Here are some possibilities, though there may be more:

• An honest change of opinion: Ms. Pelosi favored waterboarding back then (because of 9/11 and all), but she eventually realized it was wrong and we shouldn’t do it. (The only problem with this explanation is she says she has always opposed waterboarding.)

• It was political: Ms. Pelosi really opposed waterboarding back then but she was afraid to say so (even in a secret letter to the CIA) because public opinion supported waterboarding (or at least the public would have supported it if they had known about it).

• It was political but in a different way: Ms. Pelosi favored waterboarding back then, but once the Democratic left opposed it, she changed her mind.

• It was even more political than that: Ms. Pelosi didn’t care one way or the other about waterboarding in 2002 because Democratic left had not made it into a big issue yet. But once it became a big issue for the Democratic left, she had to say she was always against it, even if she really sort of wasn’t.

• Finally: Ms. Pelosi heard what the CIA was saying in 2002 but she really didn’t understand what they were telling her. And how she is too embarrassed to admit it.

Thoughts on Interrogation Techniques, Torture and the Way Forward

Here are several comments on the controversy over certain interrogation methods used by the United States in the early days after 9/11 and whether they might constitute torture.

                                                           1.

Probably the best comment on this whole question was made by Director of National Dennis Bair who talked about how easy it is to judge "on a bright sunny day in April 2009." It is hard to remember how we felt that day almost eight years ago and the days that followed: the fear, even expectation, of another attack; the flags flying from houses up and down the block; the determination to fight back. According to Porter Goss, chair of the House Intelligence Committee from 1997 to 2005, and later CIA director, when the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed on what our intelligence agencies were doing to get information to protect us from further attacks after 9/11, the concerns were whether we were doing enough, not that we were doing too much. But now that have been no attacks for over seven years, it is easy to forget. And it is easy to judge people on standards that few would have applied back then.

                                                             2.

The media has reported that President Obama has said individual CIA agents who followed legal advice in using these harsh interrogation techniques will not be prosecuted. However, if I were a CIA agent, I would not feel at all comfortable – for a couple of reasons.

First, and most obviously, two days after Rahm Emanuel said on a Sunday news show that nobody in the Bush administration would be prosecuted for their roles in these matters, President Obama said that, while CIA officers would not be prosecuted, it was up to Attorney General Holder whether top people would be prosecuted. With even more documents scheduled to be released in the near future, who knows which way the wind will be blowing a year from now and whether the administration might change its mind again. And even if President Obama doesn’t change his mind, what might some private group or some foreign government try to do – or even some members of Congress?

Second, look closely at what President Obama said:

"For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted."

Note the President’s wording. He did not say these people are not going to be prosecuted. He said they would not be prosecuted as long as they operated "within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance" they were given. This "four corners" language is a big loophole in the President’s commitment to not prosecute. What is or is not within the "four corners" of the official advice may not be clear. Also, it is likely there will be situations that are not specifically covered by the advice. Then you have to interpret: How do these circumstances fit within the "four corners" of the advice? Proving that every single one of your actions was within the "four corners" of the formal advice will not be easy, especially when the alleged victims will lie and many of your fellow citizens already think you are guilty.

Third, if your boss orders you to do something illegal or if the legal advice you receive is determined to be illegal, how can following that order or advice be okay? Following orders is not a defense when the orders are illegal.

                                                            3.

One of the silliest comments in the whole debate is this one from Paul Krugman in last Friday’s The New York Times:

"What about the argument that investigating the Bush administration’s abuses will impede efforts to deal with the crises of today? Even if that were true — even if truth and justice came at a high price — that would arguably be a price we must pay: laws aren’t supposed to be enforced only when convenient. But is there any real reason to believe that the nation would pay a high price for accountability?

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business."

The truly amazing thing about this quote is that Mr. Krugman seems to actually believe it, even though it is, obviously, nonsense. Messrs. Geithner, Orszag and Chu may not be involved in these investigations, but Congress will be, as Mr. Krugman says. Congress’ involvement in the investigations it is conducting, and its interest in investigations others are conducting, will take time and attention away from other issues. Regardless of what Mr. Krugman may think should happen, with these investigations proceeding, Congress will not have enough time to deal with all of the programs President Obama is proposing.

Also, to get big programs passed and implemented, you need media coverage, to involve the people and the Congress. Maybe it shouldn’t be necessary, but it is. And if "torture" investigations are continuing, every article on those investigations will mean less space is available for other things.

And the public’s attention will be diverted, too. Maybe people ought to be able to follow three or four or five big stories at once, but they can’t – and they won’t. Perhaps there are some so interested in politics that they will do it. But real people won’t. They have jobs to do, children to raise, churches to attend*; in other words, they have lives to live. If investigations are continuing, other matters will get less attention. And without broad public support, many of Obama’s programs aren’t going to get passed, no matter what Mr. Krugman may think.

Whether this is good or bad may be a difference of opinion.

                                                          4.

A final comment. President Obama has won the battle as to what "torture"/harsh interrogation techniques the United States will use in the future. He’s president and he gets to decide. As for the past, President Obama has said (see above) that we will not prosecute CIA officers who did their jobs in reliance on legal advice they were given (as long as their actions were within the "four corners" of that advice). Prosecution of higher-ups, however, is to be left to the Attorney General. I commented above on some of the problems with this position. Therefore, let me suggest another way to proceed, one that fits with the President’s other stated desire, to move forward.

President Obama likes to compare himself to Abraham Lincoln (to the point of using the same Bible Lincoln used to take the oath of office and even taking a train into Washington for his inauguration). With that in mind, consider what President Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Lincoln spoke of charity for all, not just charity for the enlisted men or lower level officers. Thirty-six days later, at Appomattox Courthouse, the surrender terms that General Ulysses S. Grant gave to Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia put President Lincoln’s words into practice:

"The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged, and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands. … This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside."

In other words, the entire Army of Northern Virginia was allowed to merely go home. Once again, it was not just the enlisted men or the lieutenants and captains. It was the entire army, including Robert E. Lee himself. And what Robert E. Lee and the other generals in the Army of Northern Virginia did was a whole lot worse than writing legal memos defining what might or might not be torture. They committed treason, and it resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. And yet President Lincoln knew what we needed to do to start re-uniting our country – and General Grant did it.

Is President Obama willing to do the same? Will his party let him?

------------
* Some of us also have baseball teams to follow.

Update (4/28/09 12:30 a.m.): I changed the title and corrected a typo in the fouirth paragrpah of #4.