home

Who Protects The Torturers? Barack Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:17:48 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Glenn Greenwald:

Ever since he was released from Guantanamo in February after six years of due-process-less detention and brutal torture, Binyam Mohamed has been attempting to obtain justice for what was done to him. But his torturers have been continuously protected, and Mohamed's quest for a day in court repeatedly thwarted, by one individual: Barack Obama.

Dick Cheney calls for transparency on torture. Barack Obama covers it up. It makes no sense.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | The Power of Suggestion and Mistaken Fingerprint Identification >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Protects The Torturers? Barack Obama | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:26:28 PM EST
    he's protecting some Democrats.

    Have I said that before?  I think I have ;-).

    Obama seems to be of the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    'it was wrong, but excusable' mindset. If the defendants want to argue that to a jury, so be it. But I agree, let the chips fall where they may and let's at least find out the truth.

    Parent
    I am starting to think (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:11:03 PM EST
    he needs to be made to understand that it is not about him.  or his agenda.


    Parent
    Torture Issue (none / 0) (#23)
    by dnvrnative on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:26:07 PM EST
    I watched Keith Olberman last night interviewing  Jonathan Turley. Since the constitution was raped by Bush and his cronies they should be hauled into court with chains.
    I am disappointed on Obama's stance in regards to this issue. Cheney keeps confessing and Ron Holder does nothing. I guess if you are President you can commit a crime and get away with it.

    Parent
    and you talk about Rush in here (none / 0) (#41)
    by Iamme on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    Rush incites.  Raped the constitution.  Hauled into court in chains.  Sounds like an extremist view point.  Why stop there?  How about Pelosi and Biden in chains standing next to them?  You cant pick and chose who gets held to the standard.  If they knew then they knew and signed of on it.  Mr Biden as the head of the foreign relations committee were you briefed.  Yes I was but it was Bush and Chenney.  Why didnt you say anything?  Right.  I would really like these strong opinions to go the way of "get them all" instead of picking and choosing who you want because you dont like them.

    Parent
    Soooooooooo (none / 0) (#38)
    by Iamme on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:08:32 PM EST
    That absolves the dems from any role in this?  I think not.  

    If you want the truth we get all the truth.  

    Parent

    And I'll bet that excuse (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 06:07:28 PM EST
    from Harold Ford could be used to explain just about every horrendous act we've ever done.

    I watched a show about how our country treated the Alleutian Island indians during WWII.  We took them from their homes, relocated them to a place where sewage entered their drinking water and killed 1/10th of them, and they had no heat and limited food, made them hunt seals as basically indentured servants for them.  When they finally returned to their homes years later, they found them looted.

    We did nothing for them until the 80's when Congress passed a bill giving them a small, meaningless, restitution.

    And if you ask anyone involved, they'd say, "it was a different time".  

    It's truly sickening how warped humans get during these "different, difficult times".

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:31:57 PM EST
    This is an issue that will hurt moderate and conservative Democrats, that's why.

    I still believe that if you had a truth commission and the facts came out the only people that would be real angry are progressives. Others might still find it wrong, immoral and illegal, but they also believe that sometimes things get downright ugly during war. That's the mess Pelosi and others find themselves in. They actually agree with the program but they don't want to go on record as agreeing with it.

    Yes, I have heard the (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    "fight fire with fire" and the "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette" defenses--usually from conservatives.  

    But, I have learned through experience that if you present the facts showing that the torture and murder of innocent people occurred--which has undoubtedly already happened, with over 100 hundred people dying in U.S. custody--people are less likely to say all is fair in war, and more likely to go into a Peggy Noonan style denial.  

    Progress of sorts.  Make people ashamed to advocate for torture....    

    Parent

    boca (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 04:42:26 PM EST
    it's really Republicans tossing this out to discourage investigations, investigations that would find massive culpability in the Bush administration.

    If a Democrat is hurt here and there so be it.  The real culprits here are in the Bush administration.

    Parent

    I'm afraid you're right (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    And one of the best PR jobs the Republicans have done is to convince people that Nancy Pelosi is a big lefty from leftistan. They think that threatning to expose her as supporting the torture will make the left shut up about it. Ha!

    Parent
    and their problem (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:18:50 PM EST
    is they are already on record as approving it.

    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    I dont think that should stop us but it probably will.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    I think it's neither of your scenarios. It's the fact that he's afraid of upsetting people like David Broder and the "Washington Elite". He desires to be part of that crowd more than anything. Not being invited to the cocktail parties would be a fate worse than death I guess.

    I see this as "much bigger trouble" (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    Adding together what we've plainly seen, the handling of the finance industry, 'look forward not back', tax cuts in the recovery act, etc.

    The President is a man of the established DC order who doesn't want to upset the apple cart.  The only real 'change' we'll see is no more overt damage, an improvement to be sure but an opportunity lost. Mediocrity.

    I hope I'm wrong.

    Parent

    I'm inclined to agree - at least (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:04:56 PM EST
    that's what's been going through my head when these revelations have arisen.  But I also think that he will do overt damage by trying to do everything he can to avoid upsetting the apple cart.  What we could see here going forward is a systemic acceptance that "torture happens" from time to time which effectively makes it "okay" the next time someone panics and thinks we are in some sort of danger.  I use the word panic deliberately here too because what we are supposed to learn from these kinds of "mistakes" - taking the most charitable view of the torture program that anyone possibly could - is how to avoid repeating them in the future and I think that panic was a key component of our entire breakdown of the rule of law in the aftermath of 9/11.  To me that means the terrorists won not only the day, but also the months and years afterwards.  In fact, by allowing this all to be swept under the rug and forgiven with no formal review, all we are doing is signaling that all someone has to do is attack us on our own soil and they can end our democracy.  That's pretty screwed up and says nothing good about any of the present or recent past leadership in this country.

    Parent
    Leadership (none / 0) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 04:34:47 PM EST
    nothing good about any of the present or recent past leadership in this country

    Our Presidents in the last four decades have been either stunningly stupid or mind numbingly mediocre. No exceptions and the 'tradition' continues.

    It doesn't stop at pols. We don't produce leaders anymore only managers.

    Parent

    I Went To A Nadar Rally (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:25:20 PM EST
    in Portand during the campaign and he warned about us limiting our choices to the two "corporate candidates". He prophesied that if elected, Obama would continue the policies of the Bush admin. and there would be no pursuit of justice regarding torture. Furthermore, don;t be surprised when the corporations still recieve "carte blanche" treatment from the government, and the workers bare the expense.
    Check, check, check!
    But then again, Ralph Nadar is a "flaming progressive". What does that "leftist" know?

    Parent
    "Flaming" Ego (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue May 12, 2009 at 05:06:34 PM EST
    or not, the man has done more for the common man as a consumer advocate against "Big Business" than almost any sitting politician. I'd rather listen to him than to many of the selected self-serving liars on Capital Hill.

    Parent
    Absolutely right (none / 0) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Wed May 13, 2009 at 04:35:55 PM EST
    the man has done more for the common man as a consumer advocate against "Big Business" than almost any sitting politician

    He's a terrific consumer advocate. But he would be a terrible president.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    I'm open to changing my opinion when he does something that upsets the Broders of the world. So far I haven't seen it. He's certainly following their lead regarding the torture issue.

    Parent
    Obama has had such an (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    opportunity to bring to bear his no-red-states-no-blue-states-just-United-States call to unity on this issue - which really is not about Republicans or Democrats, but Americans and what kind of country we want to be and what kind of people we want to be - and yet, he is not only not showing leadership on a signature theme, but he is actually working to perpetuate the cover-up.

    This is not a one-off; this is what I believe we can expect from the brand-that-is-Obama: feel-good speeches and dazzling optics for the masses, with behind-the-scenes business-as-disgustingly-usual.

    It's just so disheartening.

    I read as much of 'the Audacity of Hope' (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    as I could stand, given that the first 100 or so pages are a hymn to PPUS. I think he really believes that there is always a common ground that people of good will and intentions can find. Well, that is just not true in the case of torture and basic human rights. You are either waterboarded or not, and it is either acceptable or it is not. It is clearly acceptable to Dick Cheney. Obama thinks the common ground most people can agree upon is what I suspect is his own view - that it is wrong, but excusable.

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    The key is his belief that "there is always common ground that people of good will and intentions can find."

    The people on the 'other side' are not people of good will and make no mistake there are sides.

    If we all wanted real change Obama was never the type to actually deliver.  He said it all through the primaries but too many people heard only what they wanted to hear or what they thought they heard.

    Parent

    It all makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    Why would Cheney calling for one thing and Obama not calling for it not make sense? It's not like Obama is a saint or anything. His past acions on state secrets and human rights of detainees shows that.

    Cheney is more than happy to call for information that will probably not be released due to it's sensitive nature. What does he have to lose? If Obama does not release it Cheney wins as do the other GOP'ers who have been calling for the same by virtue that their claims can be disputed but are not so they must be true.

    If Obama does release the information then what Cheney is calling for will be there for sure. That will show (true or not, and it could be true) that torture did get us some important information. Two things then happen. Bush and Cheney are vindicated and Obama is shown that he is wrong in saying torture does not work. Oh wait! Obama never did say that torture did not work!

    Obama:

    "...waterboarding violates our ideals and our values.
    ...
    And that's why I put an end to these practices...I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways."

    So Obama, who has obviously seen all the internal reports is carefully not saying that waterboarding didn't work. No wonder Cheney is calling for what he is.

    And then on Obama's part perhaps he is torturing in other ways. We all know Obama by now, he directs the attention in one direction while doing  something else in another direction. Sleight of mouth.

    And if not that there are certainly other things Obama is doing that he does not want to come to light after his tenure is over. Why would he want to establish a precedent of investigations after leaving office? Actually he would be a fool to do that if he has stuff he does not want out in the open.

    So the entire Cheney/Obama thing all makes perfect sense. And the sad thing is in the end Cheney wins and Obama loses. Obama already lost. He has the Left calling for the information. And he has the Right calling for the information. All he has in his favor is the Silent Majority who could care less and that does not help him out with the more vocal of the country does it?

    I think Obama releasing any information in the beginning was a huge political miscalculation on his part.

    Larry Sabato agrees with me:

    But one thing is certain: Left-wing groups, such as Moveon.org, are not letting go. They were furious that the Obama administration had appeared to shut the door on prosecutions, or what Moveon calls "accountability." And while Obama has in the past often been willing to go against the desires of the left, it may be that in this case, he decided he could not.

    "It always amazes me when presidents reverse course," says Larry Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and author of a new book, "The Year of Obama."

    "It either means they didn't think it out well to begin with or it wasn't vetted properly. He's trying to navigate between the left and his party and the opposition party.... It's obvious he doesn't want to reopen this can of worms. But now he's stuck."

    I don't know that he is stuck. Obama is the Teflon Man and the press has died down on the subject. I think the story is dead. The Left is beating a dead horse. The Right and Cheney win either way.

    Sabato is right - it wasn't vetted properly.

    Waterboarding isn't just a violation (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    of our ideals and our values, it is a violation of domestic and international law - something our legal-scholar president somehow managed to leave out of yet another of his rhetorically brilliant speeches.

    And here's another news flash: it isn't illegal because it works or it because it doesn't work, it's illegal because it is inhumane - do you not get that?  It is wrong.  Are we now so craven that there is no line between right and wrong - even with laws that purport to define that standard - that we cannot cross if we think we have enough justification?  If we do it in secret and keep everyone else from seeing it or knowing about it?  Is that who we are now?

    Do you know what happens when you ignore standards, or find reasons why you don't have to maintain them or follow them?  You find even worse things to do the next time, you see severity of circumstance everywhere and every time you want to take the short cut.  You find another John Yoo, another David Addington, another Dough Feith - take your pick, the list is a long one - and they dutifully support whatever horror you want to visit on whomever you want.

    You can try to distill that to a matter of right v. left, of Democrat v. Republican, if it makes you feel better.  You can find solace in Larry Sabato, if that's what works for you.

    I see it more as right v. wrong, of a malignant cancer having invaded us while we weren't looking, and people who want to rationalize what has been done in our names, and think we should just ignore it, as being as dangerous to our national health as the cancer itself.


    Parent

    The cancer analogy would be good (none / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    if we pushed the idea that we need some serious "chemotherapy" to force this particular cancer into remission.

    Chemo is strong medicine, often with unpleasant side effects.  We use it because it gets the job done when nothing else will.  

    Parent

    Curb your anger (none / 0) (#33)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    I was addressing the political part of it and the question posed in the diary. I never said torture was right or was not inhumane. You really ought to read the post you are responding to more carefully before going off.

    Parent
    Part of the problem - (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    maybe the biggest impediment to ever getting to the truth - is that people have allowed themselves to be convinced that this is all about politics, and, maybe, if they analyze the various angles and the players long enough, they can find enough rationale for walking away from it, without guilt.  The same thing happened with impeachment - oh, no, we couldn't do that, it was too close to an election, and we were too busy, and besides, the times were different and Democrats went along with all the wrongdoing.  

    I'm telling you, by Labor Day, if nothing has even been started toward getting to the bottom of this, you can pretty much just recycle all the arguments against impeachment and that will be that.

    Pardon me ever so much for being angry that we are once again being slow-walked away from a horror show to yet another election where it will be crucial to maintain a Democratic majority so that...well, I can hardly wait to hear that rationale.

    Parent

    I Would Add To That (none / 0) (#46)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:34:23 PM EST
    that there is a statute of limitations for those crimes in our country, and that the longer we continue to do political gynmastics, the greater the likelihood that the window of opportunity for prosecution, at least in this country, will be closed.

    Parent
    Please don't attack me again (none / 0) (#47)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:36:28 PM EST
    for something I did not say. Your lack of an apology to me speaks volumes about you.

    Parent
    So...your comment was not (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:57:43 PM EST
    a long analysis of the politics and 11-dimensional chess that so many people keep wanting to apply to the issue of torture?

    And the end result of the endless analysis isn't slow-walking it into oblivion?

    If you can't recognize what you wrote for what it is, I have already wasted too much time responding to you.

    Parent

    asdf (none / 0) (#54)
    by ChiTownMike on Tue May 12, 2009 at 04:13:29 PM EST
    Big Tent Democrat:

    Dick Cheney calls for transparency on torture. Barack Obama covers it up. It makes no sense.


    Parent
    Well Done (none / 0) (#43)
    by Iamme on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:20:50 PM EST


    Parent
    It makes sense ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Andreas on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    ... because Obama is one of them.

    So here's the deal.... (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:12:41 PM EST
    The torture issue is the one thing that can smoke out our Pretender President. It's the one issue he really, really.............really doesn't want to confront. All the others, piece of cake.

    The economy; what's the big deal? A helicopter takes him to lunch, and a private 747 brings him back home for a catered dinner. Unlike Bill Clinton, Obama really, really does not feel the pain. (Nor see the pain, nor think about the pain.......nor care about the pain) The millions who are hurting? Answer: Hurry trillions to the Masters (while the Treasury still has some money) and make an almost angry speech about credit card interest rates; new poll; 65% approval rating.....check!

    Gay marriage, gays in the military, warrantless, wire-tapping..........yawn.

    Our factories, along with our middle class, may be dying, so doing anything about those things is a lost cause; "throwing good money after bad." Gotta go with the "future." And "the future" is Eric Holder, who, besides being an attorney, also moonlights as an economist. His solution to the unemployment problem; toss a couple of hundred thousand more pot heads into our private prison system. How brilliant is that?!! First of all, no expense to our criminal justice (notice, no comma) system; potheads are everywhere!! And, it's worth at least a point and a half to our unemployment statistics. Just think of the billions pouring into our economy; thousands upon thousands of crooked cops, blackmailing barristers, jaded judges, not to mention the oodles of money the guards will make providing inmates with wine, women, and, wait for it..........pot!

    But torture..........yuck! I mean, it's not like there's a principal involved here. If Obama cared about principals, he would've studied constitutional law at a really fancy college like, oh....Hah-vad? What? O.k, never mind that; he was going to be a "street person" anyway. So, to those who really matter, those who think "24" is a documentary, and those who voted for B.O. ( who believe the same about The Simpsons,) torture is...is, they don't have a clue;

    Nor the ability to call up a cognitive thought.

    So it's up to the press to press the issue.

    We are so screwed.

    Nail...meet hammer. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    I would give you a 100 for that comment if I could.

    Parent
    Jeralyn would've deleted it (none / 0) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 12, 2009 at 06:10:53 PM EST
    But, thank you, thank you, thank you.

    [Bowing deeply, from the waist, eyes averted, shoes shuffling, face turning black (it passed beet-red a moment ago,) kissing your lovely hand (or was that your elbow?...eyes still averted,)] and........

    I think I just peed my pants.


    Parent

    Torture is the real issue--not (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Tue May 12, 2009 at 06:05:35 PM EST
    smoking Obama out....

    Scoring points against Obama is not the point.

     The issue of torture is important enough that it should stand on its own.

    Parent

    "torture.......is important enough?" (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 12, 2009 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    Now you tell me!

    And all this time I was under the assumptiuon that the President (that would be President Obama) could, you know, maybe do a little something about it?

    But since "it should stand on it's own" I guess it doesn't need the President to help it along.

    Parent

    How beautiful (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Iamme on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:33:29 PM EST
    Campaign trail:  Obama is the man
    Election time: We the people want change
    Inaguration:  Falling all over ourselves with gleee because Obama is the man

    1st Month:  Bush and Chenney left us this mess.  Give him a chance.
    2nd Month:  Bush and Chenney left us this mess but damn thats a lot of money "hope he has a plan"

    2nd to 3rd Month: Torture gate

    3rd Month:  Maybe he is not what we thought he was.  We the American people got it stuck up our backside again.

    If he wanted it in the open.  Presidential push.  I nor anyone else here sees it.  Lots of opinion about his strategy which from where I sit is at best, not very clear.

    He never was going to be what you thought he was.  Once again we were duped.  Me included.  Even though I didnt vote for the man I thought he would be ok.  Thanks but no thanks.  Just more of the same. Maybe we need to start a new party "the American party".

    Forgot to add (none / 0) (#48)
    by Iamme on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:37:34 PM EST
    We throw out all the dems and republicans.  Capt Howdy and I can be Co-Presidents.  We both have diverging ideas and are passionate about our beliefs so I am sure we would do the right thing by the American people.  It really is about us and not about "them" anymore.

    Parent
    But all this leads one to wonder (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:46:44 AM EST
    Why is anybody surprised by this?

    You're right (none / 0) (#78)
    by KoolJeffrey on Wed May 13, 2009 at 11:38:16 AM EST
    The administration wants this issue to go away. Obama's waffling on whether any actions should be taken proves this. Anyone who still believes that prosecutions will take place is out of their gourd. What did the 911 Commission prove? Who even remembers? Obama is calculating that as the recession worsens (which it will), Americans will have greater concerns. They will be satisfied to hear that we won't do it again, and that will be the end of it.

    Hope that satisfies you.

    Parent

    is it (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:20:31 PM EST
    possible he wants some other government to do this?
    Spain or whoever?
    Not really (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    this specific case is taking place in Britain (I believe)

    Parent
    Since he is threatening Britain (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    I don't see why he would be "setting it all up" for Spain.  It makes no sense.

    Parent
    no no (none / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    I dont mean he is setting it up for Spain.  just wondering if somewhere down deep he really wishes some other country would do this so he does not have to.


    Parent
    I don't see it (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    I don't see Spain, or any other country, dragging a former President and Vice President of the United States into a court to stand trial for this. It would completely paralyze the nation.  Conservatives (and a few liberals, with lots of independents) would howl about our sovreignty,and that Spain (or whomever) has no jurisdiction to do this, blah, blah, blah.  They'd never get their hands on Bush or Cheney, and we'd certainly never hand them over.  More stuff would come out about members of Congress and past (and the present) administration(s), that it would so freeze up DC, that nothing would get done.  It would make Monica-gate look like a day at the fair.  

    The American people would be saturated with this day and night, and meanwhile, while all the other problems are being ignored, the cockroaches in government would find other ways to scr*w us. And in the end, this could turn public opinion into sympathy for Bush and Cheney, and then that's the ballgame, folks.

    Parent

    Maybe Spain is trying to deter Bush, Cheney, (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    Woo, Bybee, et al. from visiting Spain anytime soon.

    Parent
    Why is it that when there is a big issue (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:55:02 PM EST
    of great concern that involves people at high levels of the government, the big excuse for not doing anything about it is that to do so would paralyze the government and we would all just freeze in our tracks until it was over?

    This is just utter nonsense - you might as well have just whined that it would be too haaaard, too much wooooork.

    Is there anything you think would be worth applying our skills and abilities and efforts to in pursuit of the truth?  And maybe a little justice, establishment of some precedents to keep it from happening again?

    Sure, we have a lot of stuff to deal with - when haven't we?  There's health care on the table, the "reform" of which is showing every sign of being as helpful to the American people's lives as the bankster bailout.  And there's the economy - that's going really well - there's the auto industry - the one where we're applying a whole other standard in terms of assistance.  Education - Obama looking to strengthen NCLB - hey, I bet Obama takes on "entitlements" soon - can't wait to see how he will come together with Republicans on that issue.

    I think it would be an embarrassment to end all embarrassments to have another country take up an issue of such importance as torture because we were "too busy."


    Parent

    I started with jbindc's argument (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    I am evolving to yours.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    You're trying to argue something that wasn't there.

    Is there anything you think would be worth applying our skills and abilities and efforts to in pursuit of the truth?  And maybe a little justice, establishment of some precedents to keep it from happening again?

    I'm not saying we shouldn't go after them - my argument was that Spain (or some other country) will not pursue a case against Bush and Cheney.  If it happens, it's going to have to happen here.  And I also wasn't "whining" and saying it would "be too haaaard, too much wooooork," I'm saying what the reality would be.  The Repubs would use every parliamentary trick to slow down legislation and the administration would not be able to put forth any liberal (hah!) large programs (see:  healthcare).

    How much big legislation got done during 1998 -1999, right in the middle of Monica-gate and impeachment, hmmm?

    Parent

    The GOP is already using all the (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anne on Tue May 12, 2009 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    arrows in its quiver to slow things down - and the Democrats are letting them!

    You essentially said that Spain won't do it and it will just get in the way if we do it here.

    I think it would be a mistake to let any other country handle it, and a mistake not to take it on here - even if it would hard, and even if some other things might have to wait.  Frankly, from what I am seeing of the "reform" on the health care front, waiting might be the better result there.


    Parent

    Re: health care front. Clearly (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Tue May 12, 2009 at 04:05:39 PM EST
    if we wait long enough the health care industry will find enough savings to fund universal health care!  

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue May 12, 2009 at 04:22:01 PM EST
    I said Spain wouldn't do it because a) we won't let them, b)it would set a bad precedent, and c) even if they did it, it would create havoc here in our own government / media.

    My bad for not being clearer.

    Parent

    I dont see how (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    another country starting this would paralyze our government.
    I made the same argument you make against prosecutions early in this process.  and I still think its a valid argument if the prosecutions originate in this country but not if they come from someplace else.
    Obama and the democrats could shrug and go on about their business.  and the foreign government can take out the trash.
    they might not ever get their hands on Bush or Cheney but I bet the would not take an attempt to "off the table".  and we just might learn some truth.

     

    Parent

    It wouldn't paralyze the nation at all (none / 0) (#72)
    by lambert on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:53:19 PM EST
    It would paralyze Versailles.

    Remind me again why that would be bad?

    Parent

    Fair point (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Wed May 13, 2009 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    Maybe the O'Rellys, Olbermanns, Maddows, and Matthews of the world would literally have their heads explode on live TV.

    Parent
    This lesson (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    is not going to be learned anytime soon. It will take a President Romney to realize how wrong Obama is on this subject. When Romney starts okaying and protecting torturers there will be avenue to pursue for those who were wronged.

    that should (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 12, 2009 at 01:43:43 PM EST
    be NO avenue for those who were wronged.

    Parent
    Aloha (none / 0) (#24)
    by dnvrnative on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:28:44 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more. Maybe by adding pressure we can force the Obama Administration to haul Bush and his cronies into a comfy cell and then they can feel what being screwed is like.

    Cheney believed in secrecy after 911 (none / 0) (#28)
    by Saul on Tue May 12, 2009 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    no one needs to know.  He know wants to declassify but only to show that he was right. This IMO will back fire on him.  So I am all for declassifying as many documents as possible.

    On a previous post today I  had said I viewed the PBS  Frontline documentary the Dark Side several years back. I think it is a great series just so you can  see the shenanigans that were going on at that time. It shows how deceitful Cheney and Rumsfield really were and still are.

    If you view this you will see how Cheney got the CIA to invent reasons to invade Iraq even though the CIA told Cheney that Iraq had not been involved.

    Here is the link the Dark Side  you can view it here on line.  About 90 min long.

    Does anyone think (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cards In 4 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    that a prosecutor can get 12 people to agree that the EITs were torture?  When Congress has declined to specifically call WB torture.  When polls show most people are just fine with what was done?

    If you think the Clinton impeachment was a show trial, what do you think will happen when Bush, Cheney, Rice, Bybee, Yoo, Pelosi, Rockefeller, the CIA and others are hauled into court.  

    If truth be known, I doubt there has not been an administration that has approved borderline acts that some people think should be criminalized.  I remember every president since LBJ has been called a war criminal but I don't want them charged with crimes.

    Ignoring the memos, a prosecutor would have a hard time convincing a jury that the EITs were torture.  Any defense attorney that's more than 2 years out of law school would know how to defend anyone that approved or knew about what was done.  Think back to Ollie North testifying before Congress to see how it's done.  

    Everyone on this board may be 100% certain that the US tortured the detainees but that's hardly typical of the general population.              

    Something (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Tue May 12, 2009 at 06:22:26 PM EST
    makes sense to Obama.
    He is protecting someone.
    Possibly himself from future prosecution.
    It certainly makes it seem as if the practice of enhanced drowning is in full bloom.

    Long Bi-Partisan History of Torture (none / 0) (#68)
    by kidneystones on Tue May 12, 2009 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    The training of Savak and of numerous Latin American military intelligence officers took place over decades with the support of Dem Presidents and under the supervision of a Democrat-controlled Senate and House. The notion that Bush or Cheney 'invented' American torture is a telling sign of ignorance on the issue and indifference to historical fact.

    Support for the School of the Americas, where much of this training took place, divided Democrats over decades. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle continue to believe that torture and the threat of torture is a coercive tool the US needs to maintain.

    Go read the GG piece. The pdf GG cites proves beyond any reasonable doubt just how serious this administration is about protecting and preserving the America's ability to torture those it deems enemies.

    Placing the blame for torture at the door of Cheney and Bush is a revolting act of political hypocrisy and cowardice.

    I think (none / 0) (#69)
    by robert72 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 06:58:53 PM EST
    he's just covering his rear. If he prosecutes the Bush gang - the Republicans will do exactly the same to him when they get in power.

    Do you realize (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    they'll prosecute if they have reason to (or even if not) no matter what Obama does?  

    Democrats need to stop fearing that Republicans will do what Republicans will do anyway.

    Parent

    After Obama's vote for FISA [cough] reform... (none / 0) (#71)
    by lambert on Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:51:07 PM EST
    ... anybody who didn't expect matters to play out like this was deluding themselves.

    Anybody heard from the 11 dimensional chess crowd lately? How ar they holding up?

    Same old. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Sweet Sue on Tue May 12, 2009 at 10:44:58 PM EST
    Obama thinks that if the President does it, it isn't illegal.

    I think Greenwald's conjecture (none / 0) (#74)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue May 12, 2009 at 11:26:38 PM EST
    that it's really the UK government that wants the facts about this guy's torture suppressed and Obama is just going along with it, explains this episode. It does make sense.

    NY Shooter (none / 0) (#75)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:46:02 AM EST
    I agree with Anne, that brilliant rant deserves a perfect score! Only one quibble: You forgot Obama's answer to every foreign policy question: Bomb the crap out of civilians!! Heck, even George Bush was in office for a few months before deciding to invade Iraq! Obama  wants to prove he's bloodthirstier than the bloodthirstiest neocon around.

    Meanwhile, stay tuned for more fun on the domestic front, as social security gets gutted and we get an even more hideous (if such a thing is possible) health care "reform", all courtesy of our most wonderful progressive president.

    Who Protects The Torturers? Barack Obama | 72 comments (72 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment