The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

Don't know if she's "guilty" of anything, but she is protecting herself by distancing herself from any accusations that she had knowledge of the tortures.

 

She's "calculating" the downfall of Cheney. No one outside of the conservative airwaves gives a flip of what she knew 7 years ago. What's so astounding to me, in this entire debate, is that it appears to be a news flash to some people that the CIA would practice "decpetion." It's like being surprised that the Thieves Guild is full of "thieves." Go figure.

 

Thieve's Guild = CIA.... that's hilarious Chandos! Great referance! So would that make Cheney = Aran Linvail or Renal Bloodscalp? Or a Council member?

 

Forget that, he's way beyond some pathetic shadowmaster. I'd say Bodhi at the least

Anyway, I just read that Obama has supported reopening the military tribunals, with some modifications. These modifications appear significant, but I was under the impression he wanted to have regular courts deal with all who were detained at Gitmo (they may be used for some of them, but not all). Apparently Obama is gunning for "change we can agree on" now - well, we'll see how this goes.

BTW, for all it matters I doubt releasing photos would damage the US now. Pretty much everyone knows that some sick s..t happened, unlike the first time around. Also, coupled with the administration change I think it would be a case of what the US used to do, not what it does now. All in all the positive publicity - the perception that the US is willing to come clear with the skeletons in its closet and cease any such activities - would outweigh the negative imo. I am feeling a little disappointed, though I didn't vote for Obama myself - I guess I was hoping for more change than he can deliver right now.

 

More like Darth Vader, BoV.

 

You answered your own question Chandos.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html
A section of the torture statute.

So if they want to prosecute these activities as torture than EVERYONE that knew about them is guilty, not just the party that you don't like.

 

Two points: First, she was informed by the JD lawyers that it was legal, at least according to them. Second, she was only "informed" of it, she was not part of any "conpiracy." That would be Cheney and Bush. She was not a part of the planning, nor in execution of torture. In fact, she was informed of it AFTER it happened. Regadless, even if it occurred after she was informed, what could she do about it? The briefings were classified. She would have broken the law if she had made them public. Nope, she committed no crime, except in the imaginations of the conservative talking heads.

 

Nope, according to the law she is as guilty as everyone else.

 

Your own post, sir, says:

1: She did not "participate" in torture, she was only "informed" of it. 2. AGAIN, she did not have an "understanding" of the illegal action, since she WAS INFORMED BY THE JD THAT IT WAS LEGAL. That negates both parts of what needs to be "proven."

 

I don't mean to generalize too much here, but really what this map shows is that republicans are distinctly regionalized. If you will notice, all of those red areas tend to be comprised of rural, low income, highly religious sections of all of those states. All of the blue areas tend to be in higher educated urban areas.

I will include one small caveat: considering I currently live in a rural area, I will admit that rural America is and has been slowly fading into obscurity for some time. The once fanciful depictions of the small town are evaporating as opportunity fades (logging/mining go away in favor of service industries), drugs (particularly meth) rush in, and federal/state investment goes towards the cities. These communities rarely, if ever, see the benefits of anything but food stamps coming their way. So they tend to want to avoid having to pay higher taxes for services they aren't really receiving. And they perceive Democrats as tax centric.

Oh, and also the illusion that Obama will take away their guns.

 

Just as everyone involved did.
So if it gets her off the hook, by believing it was legal, it gets everyone off the hook.
You can't argue it is only legal for some and not others.

 

I never said it was legal, only that she was told by the JD lawyers that it was legal. They told her the wrong thing. THEY, along with Cheney are the ones who are going to be held accountable. Why Cheney? Because it is believed that he ordered the whole thing in the first place.

And there you have it....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/21/cheney-obama-cia-torture-memos

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/

 

Wow chandos, she got the same info as cheney but lets hold cheney responsible while she gets a free pass.
No, i don't think so.

If we apply your standard, every lawyer or judge that makes a decision that is overturned or later held to be wrong should be prosecuted.
I just don't understand that circular thought process.

Lets get to the heart of the matter, enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture(& never have been) & they are not immoral.
What is immoral is not doing everything possible to prevent your enemy from killing those you love. That # 1 rule overrides everything else - making the actions that you take toward your enemy supremely moral - whether the actions involve sleep deprivation, playing loud music, waterboarding, or watching keith olbermann(thats enough to make anybody kill themselves).

 

That's why there are going to be hearings (maybe). Cheney has not been convicted of any crimes - yet. But the fact that he is out and about saying that he has no problem with the torture, is not helping his case any. Again, the lawyers are the ones who will give the testimony. What was Cheney and Rumsfeld's role in the legal memos that the lawyers crafted? Did he suggest that he WANTED them to determine that it was legal?

Neither of us can answer that, but putting people under oath before Congress, or a grand jury, may help us find out if Cheney was" mislead," like Pelosi claims she was, or was there something more sinister between Cheney and the GWB JD. I have a feeling we are going to find out, either way.

 

Hardly. Government lawyers are informing the government heads about what is legal and what is not.

The 'legal expertise' that found torture justified, or not to be torture at all, was a very curious read for a lawyer. Many of the arguments are transparently spurious, the omissions in law or precedences are tell tale - if not to you, then to a lawyer.

A law professor like Yoo or Bybee doesn't just overlook the relevant case law on a given subject. They don't look up obscure health regulations for definitions on organ failure and pain because they don't know better but because they want to argue for a specific end. They don't overlook more relevant laws. They omit all that. Intentionally. If it walks like a duck ...

There is a difference between a lawyer getting his legal advice on what the law says wrong and overturned, and a lawyer making an essentially frivolous case, say, to cover criminal conduct (like torture). A lawyer for a company is expected to be 'creative about the law'. Government lawyers must not do that. Why? Think: I presume you wouldn't like criminal prosecutors or judges being creative about due process, confiscations, rules of evidence and the like. A mafia consigliere would be the type of lawyer embodying 'being creative about criminal law', and that's iirc what organised crime lawyers usually are being sentenced for - for their advice being part of the conspiracy to commit crime.

In an every day analogy, you probably wouldn't like a used car salesman who tries to sell you a wreck as accident free. You'd call him a fraud, because he is brazenly telling you in your face something you as much as he himself knows to be a lie.

That's the very essence about why the Bush lawyers are so much under attack from their legal peers. Because they didn't just deliver accidentally, despite their best efforts, false or unprofessional legal advice, but because their advice was very much in bad faith. They knew exactly what was prohibited under the law, but simply claimed the opposite and argued their way creatively around the law - an exercise in sophistry. That is so transparent because the legal situation is so very clear. Just to repeat that: There is no doubt that torture is illegal under US law, including waterboarding and so forth. Period. There is no basis for debate. There is nothing unclear about it. Which also makes the ongoing 'debate' in the US all the more surreal.

 

Torture IS illegal & NO, waterboarding is NOT torture, get over it.
Period, There is no basis for debate. There is nothing unclear about it. Which makes the debate in Europe all the more surreal(See, your words work so well for both sides).

P.S. I have to agree with your last post Chandos, we will just have to wait & see how it falls out.
I think that what bothers obama the most about it is that everyday that this is in the headlines is one less day his agendas aren't, which he doesn't like.

P.P.S. It's not just the CIA Director under Bush that is saying pelosi is lying but also Leon Panetta, Who served under clinton & now Obama.

 

I don't believe Obama wants to set a precedent of successor administrations prosecuting the previous administrations. After 4 years everyone accumulates skeletons in the closet.

 

Martaug - As I mentioned to you in my PM, I believe that Pelosi is very political and vindictive. It would not surprise me if this is a calculated ploy to nail Cheney to the wall. She wants the hearings. And Obama is being forced to have them, which is why the Republicans should shut-up, unless they want them as well.

 

If waterboarding isn't torture, why did we sentence all those Japanese soldiers to execution or imprisonment during the Tokyo Trials for doing just that? And before you ask -- yes, some soldiers were convicted for the crime of waterboarding alone. If waterboarding isn't torture, we owe the families of a lot of Japanese soldiers an apology -- not to mention reparations (Frankly, I would argue that we already do, since most of the soldiers we imprisoned or killed were "just following orders" -- and we sure as hell won't be allowing anyone to do that to our soldiers and agents).

 

However, it's not every administration that seemingly violates the constitution through the use of torture...

I think we can all agree that, in this case, it may be beneficial for the integrity of the United States government to show officials that they cannot violate our laws and escape scott free simply because they are no longer in office.

In my opinion Cheney is the real mastermind behind the Bush era policies and should be impeached and thrown in jail.

And to all those individuals who claim Pelosi was just as much in "the know" about the torture techniques as Cheney, that is a fairly presumptive assumption. I won't argue that Pelosi may have been briefed that "enhanced interogation techniques" were being used, but as to the extent/degree, or the actual legality of the situation, i.e. specifics, I am fairly certain it would be against the political interests of Cheney and the Bush administration to reveal such details to Pelosi. I think this is what she is arguing.

Oh, also the fact that the "enhanced interogation" techniques were supposedly already legal combined with the lack of detail.

But a trial would help clear all that up (theoretically).

Really I want to see the man who helped destroy the US's reputation and integrity go down (Cheney). I think this would be the only way we can really get it all back.