I am as against torture, and for the rule of law, as anyone.  I am extremely supportive of the president's decision to release the horrifying memos detailing how the last administration crafted a policy of illegal torture.  I believe, on the merits alone, that prosecutions are warranted.

However, I think an important piece is missing from the general back-and-forth of this ongoing debate. 

I don't believe the American people voted for torture prosecutions in November.  I don't think Obama was given a mandate by the voters to prosecute Bush administration officials.  I do believe he was given a mandate to end the torture regime—which he has done. 

I also believe, more importantly, that he was given a mandate to focus on other things besides torture: namely, healthcare, global warming, ending the Iraq War, and rescuing the economy.  If you asked the average voter how they rank the issues of the day as to their concerns, I think you would see "torture prosecutions" near the bottom of the list.

I say all of that because so many of the civil libertarian pundits over the last couple of weeks have behaved as though there is nothing more important for Obama to do as president than prosecute torturers.  More important than universal health care.  More important than the two wars we are currently fighting.  More important than combating global warming.  More important than saving our banking system.  And I think that is a woefully naive attitude to take.

I understand that a president can and should be able to juggle more than one problem at a time.  But not all problems are equal, as anyone honestly facing the political realities of torture prosecutions should understand. 

Already, we are seeing Obama spending precious political capital on this issue.  And he should spend some of it on this issue.  But how much should he spend on an issue that most Americans don't consider extraordinarily pressing, compared to the economic suffering they are currently living through?  Compared to their lack of jobs, their lack of health care, their lack of retirement savings, their lack of quality education, their crushing levels of personal debt?

I also think there has been a lot of naivete about how divisive and politically draining prosecutions of the last administration would be.  On Friday, political savant Paul Krugman stated the following:

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.

Anyone who has a shred of political instinct knows that to be complete nonsense.  But that's not surprising at all coming from the Professor.

Does Krugman actually think that Tim Geithner is really in charge of "rescuing the economy"?  That Peter Orszag will be the one to "reform health care"?  That Steven Chu will personally "limit climate change".  Those are big, political initiatives, ordered up by the president, and then pushed through by the salesperson-in-chief who spends his time and energy convincing a public and a wayward Congress that they should be implemented.  Yes, the "salesperson-in-chief" is also the president.

The actors Krugman listed—Geithner, Orszag, and Chu—are not politicians.  They are bureaucrats tasked with implementing legislative achievements that the president has developed a sufficient amount of political will behind.  If those big initiatives do not have sufficient political will behind them, they do not become legislation, they do not get passed, and they do not get implemented.

And how does Obama generate political will?  By advocating popular policies, by educating the public, and by cajoling Congress.  Oh, and also by avoiding gigantic land mines like the prosecution of the political opposition. 

I also love Krugman's bald assertion that "Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved."  Right, Paul.  I am sure that it won't be remotely distracting for Obama when Dick Cheney is brought up on war crimes.

Today's Washington Post poll had much good news for Obama (a 69% job approval rating!).  A stark exception to that good news were his numbers regarding the torture debate:

Overall, the public is about evenly divided on the questions of whether torture is justifiable in terrorism cases and whether there should be official inquiries into any past illegality involving the treatment of terrorism suspects.  About half of all Americans, and 52 percent of independents, said there are circumstances in which the United States should consider employing torture against such suspects.

Barely more than half of all poll respondents back Obama's April 16 decision to release the memos specifying how and when to employ specific interrogation techniques.  A third "strongly oppose" that decision, about as many as are solidly behind it.  Three-quarters of Democrats said they approve of the action, while 74 percent of Republicans are opposed; independents split 50 to 46 percent in favor of the decision.

That's half of all respondents supporting torture.  That's half of all respondents opposed to the release of the torture memos.  Whatever else you want to say about this debate, you certainly can't say there is a consensus in American life regarding the use of torture.  While you and I and Obama might oppose it, you and I can rant and rave all day about how evil it is, and how someone must be punished.  Obama doesn't have that luxury.  Obama has to remain popular enough to get the many, many other necessary initiatives passed that the majority of voters expected of him back in November.  If that means he doesn't prosecute some Bush-era war criminals, I believe that's a loss he'll probably end up taking.  I would tend to agree with him.

The firestorm that would erupt over seeing a prior administration prosecuted as war criminals could be more explosive than Watergate.  I think if people are going to be intellectually honest about their advocacy for these prosecutions, they have to admit that they will likely come with a large political cost for the president.  And they have to ask themselves and their fellow Democrats if they would rather trade major legislation like univeral health care for torture prosecutions.

Democratic presidencies like this one very rarely come along.  This one has already ended the torture regime.  Yet so many are conflating Obama's hesitancy over prosecution with the actual torture regime under Bush.  That's wrongheaded, and even worse: morally vain.