Comments for Obama to spare agents involved in torture »
Posted By jovial 7 months, 4 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 121
-
93%
jovial7 months, 4 weeks ago
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
100%
epiphannyy7 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%
hyperbola7 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... -
-
-
-
-
-
88%
epiphannyy7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's a valid statement. The interrogators were following orders. Whether or not they should have obeyed is something that needs to be explored. However, what is stopping him from pursuing those who issued the orders? Or those who illegally redefined torture in the first place?
Reply
A special prosecutor needs to be assigned and allowed to investigate wherever the evidence leads. The fact that he's refusing to take this minimal step is extremely disturbing. -
-
100%
donald517 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tang, Dumya had the Abu Ghraib soldiers prosecuted! And their military judge at the time told them right off that their chain of command would not be available to testify - so, no links to Rummy and Dumya!
Reply
When the Mormons had those 120 "gentiles" massacred in 1857 they finally got their trial with an all mormon jury to convict their scapegoat too! -
-
-
-
-
93%
jovial7 months, 4 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-
-
-
56%
Natureboy7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
DVTexan, please read the freakin' story, or at least get the Associated Press version. Obama has let the torturers off the hook. Period.
Reply
This is serious. This is a 180 degree reversal from the position established during the Nuremburg trials that "I was only following orders" is not a defense.
It is also yet another sign that the left should assimilate and understand - Obama may have used you to get into office, but he is not yours. He is a creature of the corporatocracy and of empire. He may implement surface reforms to quiet popular discontent - that is how one keeps the wheels of empire turning smoothly - but fundamentally, his regime will be status quo you can believe in. -
-
-
-
-
100%
bruhaha7 months, 4 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%
bruhaha7 months, 4 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-
92%
cowboygrandpa7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bruhaha:
Reply
Those who tortured should be held accountable.
Those who gave the orders for it to happen caused it.
Not those who actually did what they were commanded to do. That is like trying a soldier for fighting in an illegal war. He did his duty. He was called to war and performed his service.
The ones to be convicted should be the ones who made it happen. If you were in the military you know it is like signing your court martial papers if you refuse an order. If you disobey an order you better have done it for the right reasons or you are screwed.
That is why I say Bush/Cheney should be tried along with the legal counsel who insisted it was appropiate to torture.-
100%
scott42617 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see your point, cowboygrandpa. And indeed, under the surface that would seem to be Obama's rational. But he keeps saying that it's important to move forward. Will the responsible parties in the Bush Administration be prosecuted for war crimes? I wonder....
Reply
And don't forget: for the most part, I really like Obama. But this issue does bother me a great deal...
It is my fervent hope on this is that the Holder Justice Department will determine that they must prosecute.
Time will tell.... -
100%
dunkirk7 months, 3 weeks ago
-
88%
cowboygrandpa7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dunkirk:
Reply
Big difference.
Millions of innocent victims torured and sysytematically put to death.
Against a few victims who might or might not have been terrorists operating against our country and the free nations of the world.
Although I despise the torture and think those responsible should be held accountable. Those responsible are those who ordered it.
If it was was done without authorisation, then yeah those who actually did it are guilty as hell.-
100%
dunkirk7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understnad what your saying but the ruling comeing out of Nuremberg was following an unlawful order is not a justification for a crime. And why it was a much larger scale, the Holocaust, it would be just as illegal if a tropper was ordered to rob a local bank. While I much prefer the people giving the orders to be held accountable for their actions I tend to waver on this, i,e, trying the actual torturers. There are still a lot of facts that havent come out on this.
Reply-
100%
epiphannyy7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a little different than those facing prosecution at Nuremberg though because of the ambiguity of what constitutes torture. They are STILL debating it. It seems like commonsense should prevail, but that rarely has a legal standpoint. These agents, many of whom questioned the validity of the questioning tactics because of its lack of effectiveness, should be held accountable, but to a lesser extent to those who had full knowledge that what was happening was illegal. The further down the hierarchy you get, the less true culpability you get, in my opinion. That doesn't mean those on the bottom rung have no responsibility, but they shouldn't be allowed to be scapegoated the way that often happens.
Reply-
100%
bruhaha7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The further down the hierarchy you get, the less true culpability you get, in my opinion. That doesn't mean those on the bottom rung have no responsibility, but they shouldn't be allowed to be scapegoated the way that often happens."
Reply
That is what happened with Abu Ghraib. A few low level officers, etc were charged, declared as nothing more than bad apples so as to avoid any culpability for those who gave the orders. It's like nabbing a few low level crime figures while ignoring those who ordered the crime to be committed.
-
-
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned12 Replies
-
-
-
89%
Gransater7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Couldn't agree more.
Reply
I hope and think that what the President is trying to do, with his actions, is to deflect a situation that is sure to consume much attention away from current matters, and further fuel the split of the country along party lines. Unfortunately, in this case, there isn't any easy way out, as if any other decisions he'd have to face so far have been easy. This will not go away, eighter road he chooses.
As Cowboygrandpa states below, we need to go after those responsible for issuing orders, and distorting the law. If we don't, we will be sending a message akin to "do as I say, never mind what I do". Like it or not, the final outcome of this will to a degree define us, both domestically, and in the eyes of the international community.
I know some who will read this don't give a horses petute about what the international community thinks, but I believe it's that attitude that has slowly gotten us to where we are today, and like it or not, our future is becoming more intertwined with them with each passing day.
-
-
-
88%
Spadecaller7 months, 4 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%
Natureboy7 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%
Spadecaller7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"My dear Natureboy"
Reply
You are entitled to your hypothesis; however we both do not know the truth and the complete story. So to patronize me for my use of the term mistake is a mistake, also. The possibility even exists that if he pursues the prosecution of Bush and Cheney, more bloodshed will occur as a consequence.
I know more than you think I do. I have dealt with Nixon's black bag henchmen and to buck covert operations within the dept are not easy - even for people in high places.
-
-
-
100%
cowboygrandpa7 months, 4 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%
Beau78907 months, 4 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-
88%
dvtexan7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is what should be done, we cannot punish those that were following orders....that would be ridiculous. These memos needed to be brought out but to punish the wrong people would make no sense at all. These are war crimes if done almost anywhere eles in the world. Bush was very calculated on where he wanted his tourture to take place. An investigation had better be in place to look at the past admin and their crimes.
Reply
People need to try to understand that the CIA and service people that carried out these orders had nothing to do with any of this mess. Had they not done what they are told to do, they get punished.-
-
100%
bigG7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is anyone absolutely certain they were TOLD to do it(ordered to do so), or merely told that they COULD do it? Until that is proven one way or the other, it is supposition as to whether they were "following orders".
Reply
The former could be construed as following orders, the latter involves choice of the individual.
Again, the "following orders" defense didn't work for Nazi war criminals.-
-
100%
bigG7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The abuses at Abu Ghraib may have been used at other places including Guantanamo as well as in Afghanistan, meaning that someone in command was at least telling people what to do and how to do it."
Reply
Or, MAYBE they were doing it because they COULD without fear of retribution. If they were told that that was OK, MAYBE it was still their decision whether to do it or not.
Again, you must establish whose decision it was to actually perform it to determine whether it was an order.-
100%
bruhaha7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Or, MAYBE they were doing it because they COULD without fear of retribution. If they were told that that was OK, MAYBE it was still their decision whether to do it or not."
Reply
The fact that some of the abuses were so similar at separate locations suggests that someone was telling people what to do.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
90%
bruhaha7 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%
Natureboy7 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%
berkeley7 months, 4 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%
tehranchik7 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%
Poulenc7 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%
Natureboy7 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%
jovial7 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-
-
86%
jovial7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know that, Tee, but you know what the GOP response would be to this. It would be used as a political tool to run Foxnews and the radio talk shows 24/7 about how partisan the Democrat party is. I really don't think that matters but just to remain on the safe side I would recommend an independent prosecutor.
Reply-
83%
bigG7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree jovial, but an independent prosecutor would still bring a lot of irrational bloviation from a certain segment of our society.
Reply
I certainly am disappointed with this as I believe no one is above the law. The fact that the Bush Administration had to write a brief justifying this type of behavior casts doubt as to its' legality.
-
-
-
83%
tehranchik7 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%
pcknowledge7 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%
DarkWizard7 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%
jovial7 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%
hyperbola7 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%
THOMNH627 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%
jovial7 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%
jovial7 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%
hyperbola7 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-
83%
DarkWizard7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Perhaps Obama would like that rather than having to spearhead it himself?"
Reply
I have to agree with that line of thinking hyperbola. I think that Obama is trying to keep from being a lightening rod on this issue as it could be political suicide depending on how it turns out.
I think that he has made plenty of appointments that are sifting through material that could bury Bush and company. Obama has also allowed many papers and memos to be publicly released that Bush wanted to stay under wraps. I think this will gain more public support for looking into nefarious activities by our ex-commander in chief. This way, if the legal system and other channels "discover" grounds to prosecute Bush and company, Obama won't have personally attacked the last administration and alienated a segment of Americans.
This obviously doesn't sit well with the more informed of us that know Bush and company has committed crimes. We are impatient with bringing these crimes to the rest of the public that may be unaware of these crimes. And, also impatient with justice being served for these crimes that we have known about for many years.
-
-
-
88%
pcknowledge7 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%
Masburg7 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%
pcknowledge7 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%
scott42617 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%
Icantwait7 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%
RedstateLib7 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%
DLW7 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%
jovial7 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 -
-
-
-
100%
jovial7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now before we get too many special ops, seal, green beret wannabe's on here saying that waterboarding isn't torture. I present to you the following link. This guy is a SERE instructor. So if you got a beef with him on whether waterboarding is torture or not, then take it up with him.
Reply
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboar... -
Grouchy01Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Grouchy01Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
devlrangr7 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't believe I'm reading this people are feeling sorry for those who wish to kill us. waterboarding works it got information that helped bring in bad guys in Europe. Ever person who does this has to also go through the whole interrogation themselves, and feel what it is like. It's a sad day when Americans choose the side of evil, and goes after those who are trying to defend them. I don't think Obama is the best person for the job nor do I feel that he will be re-elected. You need to really open your eyes, and see what is going on. A group of people want to kill you because you are not one of them.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
lovethedefenders7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OMG who cares...why are we even talking about this? It happened its done move on. There are soooooo many other things he should be dealing with. President Bush did his best with what he was given, he made mistakes, everyone does. It is time to get over it and pull ourselves out of this hole we dug. Most people who bitch about war don't even know what it is like. They just know people die so it is bad. War is not candy and roses, it is trenches outside your front door, men with ak47s walking down the road bombs going off men coming in your home in the middle of the night, people turning on each other. I don't really know a single person who would have rather the ******** come here. I just hope there is a nation to fight for, if we keep our heads in the past there won’t be. This man and his decisions will make us or break us. I really hope he starts to focus on us the people and what we need, not something stupid that is done and over with and cannot be changed. pursuing something like this will divide the nation to the point it might not come back. LEAVE IT ALONE focus on the people and what we need.
Reply -
Neutral
lovethedefenders7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
OMG who cares...why are we even talking about this? It happened its done move on. There are soooooo many other things he should be dealing with. President Bush did his best with what he was given, he made mistakes, everyone does. It is time to get over it and pull ourselves out of this hole we dug. Most people who bitch about war don't even know what it is like. They just know people die so it is bad. War is not candy and roses, it is trenches outside your front door, men with ak47s walking down the road bombs going off men coming in your home in the middle of the night, people turning on each other. I don't really know a single person who would have rather the ******** come here. I just hope there is a nation to fight for, if we keep our heads in the past there won’t be. This man and his decisions will make us or break us. I really hope he starts to focus on us the people and what we need, not something stupid that is done and over with and cannot be changed. pursuing something like this will divide the nation to the point it might not come back. LEAVE IT ALONE focus on the people and what we need.
Reply -
Neutral
lovethedefenders7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some things are better off left alone. All we know is what they want us to know. Right now we are talking about the torture of men who did SOMETHING to put themselves in that position. It is kind of like, don't hang out with drug dealers and the cops’ wont think you’re a druggy! People who follow the rules mind their own business and fly under the radar are fine. It’s not like we said "OH lets take this person who seems wonderful and fine and TORTURE HIM FOR INFO". We also need to remember why this was done, TO PROTECT THE SORRY ASSES of the people on this forum. How can anyone defend people who want to kill us, people who think Americans are the evil of the world, people who could sneak into your children’s school and BLOW THE **** OUT OF IT for 72 virgins!!!!! Speaking of school...lets go into the high schools and watch what happens to children on the wrong end of gossip on a daily basis. I think we should go into prisons and watch what happens to the ones who **** off the guards or don’t do what they are asked by the inmate of the week, I think we should go into the workforce and see who gets the promotion and who doesn’t and how it is gained. These are all forms of torture we just don’t pay attention to them because O...ummm I can’t think why...WAIT none of these forms involve guns, or people with rags on their heads so WHO CARES RIGHT!
Reply
loading ...
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.