Obama to spare agents involved in torture »
Posted By jovial 6 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsCentral Intelligence Agency interrogators who tortured detainees during the administration of George W. Bush will not be prosecuted, President Barack Obama said on Thursday as his administration released legal memos that Mr Bush used to justify harsh techniques such as waterboarding.
Read Full Story at ft.com »
1054 Views Share Story 121 Comments Report
Submitted By:
jovial
Grew up In Brooklyn. Joined the Navy in 1976 stayed in 10 years. Aircraft Electronics tech. Worked for Major Govt. contractor then settled in California ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 108 of 121 Comments (view all)
-
93%
jovial6 months, 3 weeks ago
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
100%
epiphannyy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This very well may be a deal breaker for me. He campaigned on this issue, and now he's not only refusing to pursue the legal recourse possible against those who defied our own laws against torture, but is also seeking to strengthen the government's immunity against future accountability.
Reply
There is a lot I like about Obama. Overall, I think he is the best man for the job of president right now. I think he is doing a lot of good. Even as he is increasing spending he is focusing on America for a change. His spending is more in the investment arena than the spending arena. But THIS refusal of his to hold torturers to account is indefensible and, in my mind, big enough to trump all the good he is accomplishing elsewhere.
I'm not convinced yet that he will do nothing, especially with how unpopular this decision is proving to be on both sides of the aisle. So I'm willing to give him a little time and see where he chooses to go. But if he chooses to stay the current course of protect, cover-up, and continue on the Bush path of "don't question the Executive"......he won't have my vote in 2012. That is a simple fact, and I don't believe I am alone. -
71%
hyperbola6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You should NEVER forgive this jovial! Now we see clearly how the path of military imperialism is perverting and destroying Ameican democracy. Rmember what we espoused in the world only 60 years ago. Frankly this may be an issue for a trial for all those who enable impunity for crimes against humanity, including Obama if need be.
Reply
Barack Obama, Torture Enabler
America is a nation of laws--laws enforced by Spain....
... Yoo, Bybee, Addington, Gonzales, Haynes and Feith were asked by the White House to come up with legal cover for what they knew or ought to have known were illegal acts under U.S. law, international law, and treaties including the Geneva Conventions (which were ratified by the U.S. and therefore hold the force of U.S. law). Since they don't deny what they did--indeed, they continue to justify it--their presumed defense if they wound up on trial in Europe would be that they were just following orders.
However, the decision in the 1948 trials of German attorneys immortalized in the fictionalized film "Judgment at Nuremberg" makes clear that a lawyer's duty is to the law--not his government. And not just his own country's law--international law.
However, the decision in the 1948 trials of German attorneys immortalized in the fictionalized film "Judgment at Nuremberg" makes clear that a lawyer's duty is to the law--not his government. And not just his own country's law--international law.
The Nuremberg tribunal acknowledged that Nazi Germany was an absolute dictatorship in which everyone answered to Adolf Hitler and could be shot for disobeying. Nevertheless, the court ruled, "there were [German] restrictions for Hitler under international law." Despite his total legal authority within Germany, Hitler "could issue orders [that violated] international law." Obeying a direct order from Hitler, in other words, was illegal if it violated international law. And German lawyers went to prison for doing just that.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/04/12/barack-o... -
-
-
-
-
93%
jovial6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He has opened pandora's box for future administrations. I hope he regains his senses on this. If we get a President like Cheney in there in the future, he could use this precedent to protect themselves from any prosecution whatsoever. We haved moved one step closer to a dictatorship.
Reply -
-
100%
bruhaha6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why can't he get it through his head that as long as we continue this precedent of letting lawbreakers from the previous administration off the hook, future administrations will continue to flaunt the law because they know that they can get away with it. How many in the Bush administration were former Nixon staffers!
Reply
It's great to look forward, but sometimes, in order to move forward, you HAVE TO look back.-
100%
bruhaha6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As for the torture.....what message does it send to people, especially those outside the US, that those who tortured won't be punished even though the knew or should have known, despite "assurances" from the Bush admin legal hacks, that what they were doing was illegal,
Reply
-
-
88%
Spadecaller6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A big mistake this is. I wish I knew the full picture of what he is really up against; I suspect he has been duly warned about the ramifications that investigations and hearings will cause the agency in functioning on his behalf. I'm sure it is more than an idle threat.
Reply
Nevertheless, I am disappointed as I know so many of us are. The future of our nation depends on the confidence we must have in our government's ability to remain accountable to the enforcement of our most sacred laws. When they are broken by our highest officials and then are ignored and overlooked as not being a priority, the message is that protecting our constitution from domestic enemies is less important than protecting it from those we perceive as its foreign enemies.
Should our government slip further into chaos and prove to be incapable of functioning according to the rule of law, I believe it will come from inside our borders and not from a foreign threat.-
57%
Natureboy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"A big mistake this is."
Reply
My dear Spadecaller, why do you believe that this is simply a mistake? Do you believe that someone who is as smart as Obama, and with an academic background in constitutional law, simply did not understand the implications of this act?
Isn't it a much more plausible hypothesis that Obama knows damned well what he is doing, and while placating the lefties with the closure of Gitmo he is keeping the tools of U.S. terror intact so as to preserve them for more quiet, covert use?
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
Reply
"In releasing the documents, which underpinned the Bush administration’s “war on terror” detention and interrogation policies, Mr Obama said CIA employees should not be punished for “relying in good faith” on legal authorisations provided by the Bush-era justice department.
“The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world,” said Mr Obama. “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.”
I am not in favor of prosecuting the ones following the orders. I am in favor of prosecuting the ones giving the orders.
To prosecute the ones following orders is like saying we want a scape goat. Bull Crap !!!!!! That is like what happened to the soldiers over in Vietnam. They followed orders from a superior officer and were prosecuted for it. It didn't bring the dead back to life, nor did it increase morale of the soldiers. In fact it was bothersome and might have caused the deaths of some soldiers who questioned the orders of their leaders.
I want the freaking ones who said it was okay, and authorised it. I want them to be held accountable !!!!!!! Their call, their responsibility.
At least that is how I see it.-
91%
Beau78906 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was going to say something similar, cowboygrandpa. If CIA employees should not be punished for "relying in good faith" on the torture memos, can we at least punish the ones who wrote those memos and the ones who told the CIA to go ahead based on those memos?
Reply -
90%
bruhaha6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've definitely got a point. Going after the people following orders without going after those who gave the orders and those who "made it legal" will look like scapegoating. As for your comment about the military, court marshals, etc. We are dealing with the CIA here. People did realize that what was being ordered by the Bush Admin was illegal and they resigned.
Reply -
88%
Natureboy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I am not in favor of prosecuting the ones following the orders. I am in favor of prosecuting the ones giving the orders."
Reply
You know, of course, that "I was only following orders" was a popular defense during the Nurenberg war crimes trials, and that it did not keep nazis from the gallows. Rightly so.
Military and intelligence are authoritarian structures. When there is widespread genocide and/or torture, there is always somebody giving the orders. But anybody in their right mind knows that genocide and torture are wrong, I don't give a damn who told them to do it. If they do it, they should pay the price.
Really, what message do you want to send to the interrogators of the next war? That they are responsible for their actions regardless of the orders of their higher-ups? Or that it's OK to torture as long as somebody with rank told them they could?
-
-
86%
berkeley6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
does anyone remember the show trials at nuremburg?
Reply
they had many faults, but they did establish the precedent of claiming "i was just following orders" as legally insufficient.
the problem then, as now, is that this valid concept is only applied to some of the people some of the time.
we have already had a few show trials stemming from activity harming prisoners in iraq. only the lowest level people were punished. this was and is outrageous.
obama has to know what bad precedent and bad law this is, yet he's proposing it anyway. of course, things could change, and congress could assert it's authority. but it also might rain tomorrow. -
86%
tehranchik6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dvtexan said "we cannot punish those that were following orders....that would be ridiculous."
Reply
Following orders.......I'm sure that I am 100% responsible for any and all of my actions. There is responsibility in the lower ranks, as well as the top, for these crimes of torture. Those who carried out the actual tortures had an obligation to morality. They made wrong choices and committed crimes. Any one from the top to bottom carries a responsibility in these crimes. The fact that only the lower ranks have been prosecuted to this point is what is the shame here.
Would you argue that the nazi and ss soldiers shouldn't be held accountable for the slaughter of innocents because they were only 'following orders'? As berkeley said....nuremburg didn't go for it..... legally insufficient.
Of course I want the bush six to face what they have done..... bush and cheney along with them. This group of men at the top have to be investigated and charged. That's part of what america is supposed to be about.......getting the bad guy.
Obama has not kept his word in this matter. We jumped with excitement over closing guantanamo but bagram is taking it's place. During the campaign Obama said that the detainees should be allowed 'one shot' at a defense in court - now he says the opposite and has even appealed a ruling by a judge that says detainees at bagram should be able to challange the charges against them in court. This isn't the obama I voted for.-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
83%
Poulenc6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's realpolitik. The revelation of misconduct (to put it mildly) at least makes the perfidy of the last admin incontestable.
Reply
Obama wishes to discourage distracting divisiveness at a time when the nation is extremely vulnerable to partisan obstructionism. To nonproductive distraction.
My own feeling is that those who instituted the orders at the highest level--and particularly at the highest level--at least should be held absolutely accountable for their actions.-
83%
Natureboy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama wishes to discourage distracting divisiveness at a time when the nation is extremely vulnerable to partisan obstructionism. To nonproductive distraction."
Reply
Fscking bollocks! Holding torturers resposible for their deeds is a "nonproductive distraction?"
Far more likely that Obama doesn't want to be on the outs with the CIA, nor to eliminate as a practical matter a tool which he himself may wish to employ.
He also won't go after those who ORDERED the torture or wrote the legal opinions, because he wouldn't want to establish a precedent which could place his own head in a noose down the road.
-
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive3 Replies
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
89%
jovial6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can understand that Obama doesn't want to make this seem like a partisan witch hunt. So I would propose that he hire an independent prosecutor. One that has no political affiliation. Then let him investigate the matter and let the chips fall wherever they may fall. Obama has to know that it's his duty to enforce federal law. He can't just ignore this issue. It would be grossly negligent of his Presidential duties for him to just look the other way.
Reply-
-
83%
tehranchik6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Independent prosecutor is a good idea jovi. I'm just wondering where we might find one without bias.
Reply
For me this is a moral issue and I haven't taken in to account what either party might or might not do with an investigation and prosecution. I see it as outside of politics. It's a corruption of power thing and either party could succumb to the corruption.
Foxnews and talk radio can all take a flying leap. They are there to make money not take care of the people.
-
-
83%
pcknowledge6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I believe the people who gave the command to torture and the ones who did the torturing should all be held accountable. "I was just following orders" is not a defense. As human beings we should all be able to distinguish between right and wrong, between following and acting upon a command that is acceptable and one that is completly unacceptable. The belief that it is ok to justify torturing another human being because one was given the command to torture another human being leads to a lawless, unjust, uncivilized society. Corruption is thereby spread from the top to the bottom. Next thing we know, local police officers will abuse their power, with the excuse that they were just following a Supervisor's command. I don't believe that's what the forefather's had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
Reply
Here in America, we spend a lot of time critisizing other countries for their inhuman practices and human rights violations. People in those countries look at the Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay cases, and think well Americans torture as well. Is that the example we want to show to the rest of the world? -
83%
DarkWizard6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
After reading the article and the comments here I have to wonder where the line has to be drawn for responsibility of one's own actions. If those "following orders" are not responsible, can we assume that there are definitely those who are responsible? Like the ones giving orders?!
Reply
However, I fear that nothing will happen unless our allies, and the American people, yell loud enough to be heard, that war crimes were committed by Bush and company. -
100%
jovial6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It has come to my attention that not only did he immunize the CIA agents accused of torture, but his administration also did some negotiations which may have affected the outcome of the case developing in Spain. Can anyone confirm that with a link?
Reply-
100%
hyperbola6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Spanish media have rumors about that. What has happened publicly is that the Fiscal General (Chief Prosecutor, who is subordinate to the Ministry of Justice) has claimed that under international law, the plaintiffs in the case should have first submitted the case to the American justice system. He states that only after it is handled in the US, can Spain apply intentional law.
Reply
There seems to be a definite political attept to bury the case, especially in keeping it out of the hands of Baltazar Garzon, who handled the Pinochet case.
Here, for those of you who read spanish, are some details of what is going on.
La Fiscalía no deja a Garzón instruir el 'caso Guantánamo'
http://www.diariocritico.com/2009/Abril/nacional/1...
-
-
11%
THOMNH626 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
wow you people are really out there, I thought I was reading move on.org but then I realized this is libscape. If so called war crimes keep this country safer from terror then what the hell are we arguing about. Do you think they cared about these issues when beheading people, do you think they cared about the Geneva Convention when flying planes into buildings are killing thousands. Fear not you liberal drinkers, Olberman is only a few hours away and you will feel much better. God bless america and a president who didn't care what you ******* thought and kept us safe.
Reply-
88%
jovial6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I guess that's one take on it. But as i see it those terrorists that do beheadings and things, are just that, TERRORISTS! We aren't terrorists, at least we weren't last time i checked the list of terrorist nations. So why should we employ tactics that make us equals with the terrorists?
Reply
-
-
100%
jovial6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Never mind, found it! Here's the link. A good article for someone to submit.
Reply
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41766
So it seems that the Obama administration may be a little (or a lot) more than passive on this issue. He vowed transparency, I would really like to know why he's doing this.-
83%
hyperbola6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Frankly under our law it is not Obama's decision to make. The case that was put together in Spain could be submitted to the justice system here in America - and should be. Perhaps Obama would like that rather than having to spearhead it himself?
Reply
-
-
88%
pcknowledge6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"God bless america and a president who didn't care what you ******* thought and kept us safe."
Reply
If you think Bush kept us safe by invading Iraq, and having the Iraqis tortured, your sadly mistaken. The Iraqis didn't attack us on 9/11, they didn't fly any planes into any of our buildings. The problem with people who think like you is your not familiar with the various Middle East regions. -
17%
Masburg6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Come on...really? Lets go after everyone who has ever protected the US. Hey Im sorry but next time we get attacked and you scream for blood. Dont. Im so sick of hearing your cries of "get them all". They got information. INFORMATION that protected your butts. Here, how about this go, back to Sept 11 get your ass on one of the towers and watch that plane come in. OH and then ask yourself in your finale momments, WHY we didn't know this was goin to happen. And it's not just the Towers that were the only things they had planned to attack. How many countless bombing, shooting, or anything else have been stopped befor happening.Thanks to the infomation we recieved. One outweighs the other. Think about it.Protect the agents. Thanks
Reply-
-
88%
pcknowledge6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Im so sick of hearing your cries of "get them all". They got information. INFORMATION that protected your butts"
Reply
Really? Did they get information about Bin Laden's whereabouts? Ohhhhh, you mean maybe they got info about Saddam's whereabouts....oh but Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11!...oh you mean they got information about the whereabouts of Saddam's sons, but heck they didn't attack us either on 9/11! Maybe they got information about Chemical Ali, but heck the guy says he got his chemical weapons from the US when Reagan was President!
Ok so what USEFUL information did they get by torturing Iraqis, Pakistanis, and whoever else was at Abu Grahib & Guantanamo Bay?
Where is BIN LADEN? Any info?
-
-
80%
scott42616 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Homework assignment:
Reply
Thom Hartmann (04/17/09).
http://www.620kpoj.com/cc-common/podcast/single_po...
Today's show is great and, IMO, is an accurate barometer of the true disappointment many of us feel on the left.
(And those who stream this....please note that your player will likely allow you to fast forward through the commercials so you can cram 3 hours of listening into 2!)
I hang on to the belief that the Democrats will win even more seats in 2010 - in spite of the terrible position the president has taken here (and remember, the Democratic senators and reps DO NOT necessarily endorse the position he has taken here. Most don't agree with the president). Then maybe....just maybe we'll see progress.
I do find it refreshing that we aren't just giving the president a free pass on this - as the right did with Bush for 8 years (....and to be fair, as WE did with Clinton the 8 years before that). We need to harness this anger and MAKE HIM DO THE RIGHT THING! -
0%
Icantwait6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Americans. Oooooh! Obamas' wife must be accused of torture as well. I'm sure she tried to slap some sense into her high husband. A caterpillar in a box, how scary, and their terrorist? Waterboarding must be terrible, since they are really not to familiar with water. You know, never bathe. Oh you don't get it.
Reply
How stupid that Obama is running around considering that as torture. What is his definition of lopping off an Americans head on national television. Those prisoners never had it so good I hear they were surrendering just to get the food and clothing not to mention the wonderful sleeping facilities. The Real American. -
100%
RedstateLib6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If I were a little guy in this food chain and the top lawyers in the Justice Dept put it in writing that what I was being asked to do was legal I might reasonably assume it to be legal. After all it is the job of those DOJ officials to make those calls. I would personally refused on a moral grounds because it is not something I would take part in. But to punish those at the bottom when they had reasonable grounds to believe that these were lawful orders is wrong. Those who wrote these memo's and those who approved their use are guilty of manipulating others to do their dirty work.
Reply -
50%
DLW6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Torture my ass! Ask John Mc Cain about torture! Have any of you candy asses ever been through boot camp or college hazing? You liberals make me sick calling this torture. Pull their finger nails out if that's what it takes to break them. Does anybody remember Mr. Berg's beheading? That was torture!
Reply-
100%
jovial6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Richard Arnitage-A former No. 2 State Department official in the Bush administration says he would have resigned if he had known the CIA was subjecting terrorism suspects to waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5QmQBv0tYc -
-
-
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Historic healthcare overhaul passes House
Afghanistan government says foreign officials are interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.