Uncovering and maintaining secrets

Update:

Obama has authorized the release of the 3 'torture memos'.  They are available here.  I've quickly gone through the memos, and there is very little redaction (although, there seems to be a page or two missing--I'm not sure of that though).  Obama also released a written statement about the memos.  Here is a relevant bit, explaining his reasoning:

...I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States. 

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Three points.  First, as I suggested in my original post, a refusal to release the memos would just be an exercise in failing to acknowledge what's already known.  Despite pressures to do otherwise, Obama recognized this.  Secondly, Obama seems to have found a politically intelligible position.  In releasing the memos, he's placating those who demand transparency in government; and, by ensuring interrogators not be prosecuted, he placates the career intelligence agents whose trust he requires.  Thirdly, the bit about fueling inflammatory and erroneous assumptions may have been a preemptive attack on the Spanish prosecutors who are seeking indictments of the authors of these memos.  The quest for indictments is surely inflammatory, but in what sense is it erroneous?  Surely, there is a distinction between the lawyers who drafted these memos and the interrogators who relied on their legal purport.  The legitimacy of the interrogators' actions rested entirely on the authority of these memos--and these lawyers knew exactly that when they penned them.

In his statement and in the context of a call to unity, Obama said that "this is a time for reflection, not retribution."  I think it would be retributive, in the sense of vengeful, to seek the prosecution of interrogators who relied on the legal advice of authorized lawyers.  This would be a mistake.  On the other hand, retribution, in the sense of retributive justice, has its legitimate place, because it is a constitutive part of applying the rule of law.  For several reasons, it would be a serious mistake to merely reflect on past illegal behaviors.  Firstly, retribution, and not mere reflection, is a more effective means to ensuring that these heinous power drunk behaviors don't occur in the future.  Secondly, irrespective of incentivizing future deliberations, the resentment caused by the torture regime will not just go away by reflection alone.  It is a truth about human beings that 'moral repair' or the achievement of normalizing relations between victim and victimizer requires punishment or, at the very minimum, a full account.  A victim can't get that through 'reflection'; s/he needs a social space in which truths are investigated and properly aired by trusted authorities.  It doesn't sound like Obama understands this, either because his optimism prevents it, or else his political radar signals that it is a political non-starter.       

----------------------------   

Spanish investigators are pressing ahead with their prosecution of the American torture crew, including Yoo, Addington and Gonzales. 

Apparently, adherence to the rule of law and the desire to uncover the truth about torture does not extend to the other side of the pond.  The Wall St. Journal reports that Obama is leaning towards keeping classified 3 'torture memos', ones which he previously promised he would disclose (not to mention that there is an outstanding court order for him to do so).  

To be sure, there exist various political reasons for maintaining darkness.  Chief amongst them, evidently, is Obama's desire to keep rank and file members of the CIA in the fold.  Fearing alienation, he is balancing citizen's need to know with his ability to maintain control over a key intelligence agency.  This is an intelligible desire.  

However, it is difficult to see how willfully maintaining darkness is a winning strategy, given the circumstances.  First, there is no end to the grief he is going to face should he align himself with this sordid past.  Secondly, the most credible source in existence on such matters, the Red Cross report, has already unequivocally asserted that torture took place under US hands.  And, we already know, more or less, the identities of the main players involved in authorizing this torture.  In keeping certain details secret, Obama would be doing little but failing to acknowledge what is already known.  Of course, it is not known to the larger public--and maybe that's what the triangulation is about--but ostrich-style politics can't coexist in the same world as the Google search bar.  In the Google world, knowledge is but a few keystrokes away, and maintaining secrets, especially when they have nothing to do with you, is a political loser.