The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

Pretty funny Drew, as nowhere in that entire entry is waterboarding EVER mentioned. You must be psychic to be able to read their minds from what is written there.

 

Martaug, the wiki link was just to explain what the Tokyo trials were. Having worked in law enforcement, yourself, I'm sure you understand that "water-boarding" is not an explicit charge. A guy who pisses in an alley is charged with the same offense as the guy who pisses at a street corner. Legally speaking, public urination is public urination, so it should come as no surprise to you that we consider torture...well...torture. Feel free to check the criminal code -- chapter 113C of title 18, part 1 -- if you need further clarification on the subject.

If you want me to post a transcript of every trial from the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, forget it. There are a lot of interesting books on the subject at your local library. I will give you this, though:

Politifact reviewed Senator McCain's statements, consulted with a historian and top scholar on the trials -- and found McCain's statement to be true. We considered waterboarding a crime, and we tried and convicted enemy soldiers for waterboarding.

Yes, no one was executed for "just" waterboarding, but that isn't really the point, is it? If we tried and convicted people for war crimes for employing the "water cure", as it was then called, then we considered waterboarding a war crime, or to speak more plainly, torture. Waterboarding is torture. Get over it.

 

Incidentally--if nailing Pelosi and Reid to the wall was the price for getting Cheney, that would perfectly fine with me.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

And then, when called out on that ridiculous claim.

Man, you & nancy pelosi must have went to the same school.
Lie, than when you get caught in it, go back & say the exact opposite of what you just said.

P.S. BTW i provided a link to the torture statute in post# 286. To keep you from having to go back & look it up, here is the legal definition of torture.

I, just like the JD lawyers do not feel that any of the enhanced interrogation techniques meet these criteria.

 

I have a feeling that you never read any of those memoranda that you so generously and uncritically embrace.

Is that so because you say so? Because you want it to be so? Is there a basis for that claim in something other than sentiment? Do you perhaps have a rational argument why that is so? If so, please share it (unless it is a(nother) copy-paste-job). For once I'd like to read a coherent argument in your own words, maybe even spellchecked. Maybe you want to post it in the torture thread? Needless to say, your claim is false. You really appear to want to entertain the delusion that water boarding is not torture.

Curiously, the US is the only country at this time that affords itself the excentric luxury of 'debating' whether near drowning someone is torture. Maybe you want to tell me some BS now, like that the Japs, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge and the Spanish Inquisition were near drowning people in an unsophisticated, coarse and tortuous manner, while current US variant is conducted artfully and thus in a non-tortuous fashion - which elevates it into an entirely different animal? What is it that transforms near drowning American style, into something other than torture? The presence of a doctor signalling technocratic thoroughness? The cooler rack? The water quality? That the bastard had it coming anyway?

Maybe you want to totally embarrass yourself by calling water boarding by a more precise name to differentiate the (non-tortuous) American art from the petty cruelty of ordinary (tortuous) near drowners. I suggest two terms: La Question Americaine, or perhaps American Water Boarding. Now, nitwits will infer that the near drowning and agony part and not the whataround is what turns water boarding into torture, but you probably don't want to read or hear that. Horrors, where might one end up if one follows that path of thought. Better not go there at all.

As for now you appear to prefer the feel-good approach - when you maintain that no crime happened, you don't have to address the reality of messy and ugly facts. If you really want to sucker yourself - fine. You have been educated on the matter, here and, if you wanted to, elsewhere. At least you're out of the 'But how could I have known that water boarding is torture' excuse, for the unlikely case you do engage in critical thinking and change your mind.

The so-called 'debate' in America is for political reasons only - domestic American politics actually - and the main thrust is to cover the asses of fear- and/or vengeful out-of-office politicians who ordered torture and their supine lawyers who cooked up justifications for torture, all for the sake of expediency. They all now might face the legal consequences of their previous illegal conduct. Their efforts mirror the efforts by out-of-power players and parties in other countries where authorities have engaged in torture. Their and their apologists insistence that water boarding was not torture is clearly self interested. The ex-officials cravenly want to avoid prosecution for the crime of torture (and there, denial that what they ordered was torture is the first line of defense), whereas the apologists cynically want to make political hay with it, by playing tough on terror. Hey, we're so tough, we even have no qualms about torturing our enemies*! Now that will make you safe, won't it? Whatever.

​

I am disappointed that the Obama crew doesn't want to touch the matter with the proverbial ten-foot pole. It is clear to see why - they fear being accused of partisan retribution, which, q.e.d., is not a far fetched a concern. But that allegation, however politically effective it is, is utter nonsense. Law enforcement isn't optional. Water boarding is torture. Torture is a crime. Those who ordered it are criminals. Criminals are to have their day in court and face their punishment. Former presidents and vice presidents included.

* To top that poses an interesting problem for other right wingers. What about that one: I won't only torture our enemies, I'll eat their brains and incorporate their knowledge to better thwart their plans and keep you even safer!

 

Poor Rag-usa, i have already laid out my points in other posts & don't feel like repeating myself. Go look them up if you have a problem with my stance.

 

I don't have a problem with your stance. It is simply so that it is replete with factual errors and faulty assumptions and cannot be left standing unrebutted. I also mourn a lack of original thought and a stubborn refusal to use a spellchecker.

 

Waa Waa, if you wish to insult me please do it in a PM, so that i don't get blamed for your lameness.

 

Pelosi may not be guilty of any crime per se, but she could be shooting herself in the foot politically in her efforts to destroy Cheney. As for Obama, he would rather focus on the now --as Chandos said:

It kind of reminds me of the story of the 2 men who were bitten by snakes. The snakes fled after biting. The first man grabbed a stick and started chasing after the snake that bit him, desperate to kill the creature that had harmed him. The second man sat down and grabbed his first aid kit, rinsed out the wound, and tournequetted it. The first man died a miserable death. The second one lived.

Obama and the Dems believe that America has been poisoned by the BUsh administration. Instead of going after the culprits and letting America continue to suffer, he's going after the more important problem (or at least he's trying to, if Pelosi and some of the other members of the legislative branch of government would just shut the F up and let him do it.)

I don't believe that America was damaged as badly by the Bush administration as badly as the Dems do, but I admire Obama for wanting to focus on building something rather than tearing things down.

 

IMO, waterboarding was chosen because, at least for some, it falls into that gray area that can be denied as such by those who are deploying it. Historically, there is a strong case to be made that it is torture, but based largely upon if whether or not we were the victims of its use. While it seems obvious that it is torture, this follows a very typical pattern among certain political groups in the US: If we do it, it's OK; if someone else does it, it's a not correct or a crime. This kind of "thought process" intersects on many of our political issues.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

 

Mea Culpa. Thanks for pointing out my error. That, my, uh, friend, was what we call a typo. Had I re-checked my earlier post, I would have corrected it myself. 1,000 pardons. The word I meant to use there was "convicted". I have since edited my post.

That said, martaug, all of this is entirely beside the point. We did convict people of war crimes for waterboarding alone, meaning that Bush's decision to make it legal was more than just a "simple policy shift". We have sent people who, in many cases, were "just following orders" to prison for waterboarding. Why? Because waterboarding is torture.

Sure, but I would also point out that we are at least auspiciously a nation of laws. While I think it is admirable that Obama is trying to keep the investigation within the Justice Department, I don't think we should just "put this behind us" without investigating the matter fully and levying charges if there is sufficient evidence to do so (the Justice Department is more than capable of doing this without help from Congress, so there is no reason that this would have to detract from our legislative agenda). The "let's just put it behind us" approach has never gotten me out of a speeding ticket, so it shouldn't get the Bush administration out of standing trial for war crimes, either.

 

How does the promise not to prosecute those who actually carried out the interrogations not show that this is all just partison BS?

Go for it & when the shoe is on the other foot in the future & obama administration members are brought up on charges i don't want to hear any complaining(oh but we will).

 

No offense, but you really aren't making any sense, here. How is suggesting that a soldier who is issued orders from the highest level of government -- and assured by his chain of command and his JAG corps that those orders are lawful -- shouldn't be punished when following those orders partisan in any way? Wouldn't any reasonable person agree with this?

If Obama actually breaks the law, I won't complain. We are, of course, a nation of laws. That said, Obama has made great efforts to keep this within the judicial system. I might have something to say if the next president tries to handle matters through the legislature instead. Lefties like me are already up in arms about Obama's decision to resist providing court hearings to our prisoners in Bagram, his re-issuing of military tribunals, his initial reluctance to allow any investigation into the goings on of Bush's torture program, and his decision not to release the detainee photos. If you think the left is going easy on Obama just because he's a democrat, you obviously haven't been watching MSNBC, the Daily Show, CNN, the Colbert Report...Stewart, Colbert, Maddow, and even the "Obama worshiping" Keith Olberman have been exceptionally hard on president Obama as of late -- and on Nancy Pelosi, too.

 

I personally feel that if the only result that comes from all this hubub is that it ends the career of Nancy Pelosi, I think some good will have come of it. I've never liked her and never understood her ascension within the Democratic party. I tend to believe the CIA's side in all this. It looks to me like she's covering her behind here, and badly. A lot of the ire directed at Pelosi is mindless partisan nonsense, as is most directed at Dems in positions of power - but in her case, much if it is earned as well. I say we pitch the b... er, lady.

Having said that - I do found it amusing how intent some people on the right are to try to keep changing the subject to Pelosi while taking it off the Bush administration and what exactly they did. This is about them, after all.

 

OK, I haven't the time nor the inclination to wade through the reams of ka ka that have likely been written, so I'll just pose some questions and comments:

1: Is there any evidence that Pelosi signed off on the waterboarding? Proving that she knew it was happening is hardly worth taking the time -- a lot of people knew it was happening but were powerless to stop it. Doesn't make her complicit. If they can prove that the woman was complicit in that she signed a paper that said "yes, waterboard the following prisoners: ", then she loses all moral authority to go after the Bush administration.

2: In a world with limited resources, is it worth utilizing those resources to go after the previous administration, especially since success in legal matters like this is not a slam dunk? By the same token, is it really worth the energy and resources to go after Obama because he likes Dijon mustard? While torture is obviously a much more serious matter, the fact remains that the American people -- I would say all people around the world, for that matter, have bigger fish to fry than either of these issues. The pettiness is stunning.

3: While I would cheerfully waterboard some people (my brother in law, for example, but that's a Whatnots post) there seems to be very little debate in my mind that it is a form of torture -- it is designed to cause mental suffering to a degree far beyond mere confinement -- let me clarify, to a non-acceptable degree. I realize that many "badass" special forces types and probably even some lifeguards go through it as part of their "toughening" training, but that is totally voluntary, and I don't think they do it more than a couple of times. IMHO that hardly compares to repeatedly waterboarding a prisoner.

Edit: This article is a case in point -- what should we do NOW with the prisoners in Gitmo? It's not as simple as just releasing them, as

Even Obama acknowledges many at Gitmo are hardened terrorists and that it'd be folly to release them.

So what to do? Obama has a lot of more important issues than punishing Bush and his cronies for what may or not have been legal -- the law is such a nebulous thing, especially when you are dealing with an entity that can write laws governming its own behaviour -- of course Bush should probably be punished for his sins, but at what cost to citizens languishing under horrible conditions and Gitmo prisoners languishing as we speak? Priorities, my friends, priorities!

 

LKD, as for 1.
Pelosi didn't sign off on anything. She didn't make decisions under the reign of Bush's 'unilateral administration'. She was of the minority party. They didn't tell her because they needed her approval when at the time the R's iirc held both houses. This 'bipartisan outreach' by the Whitehouse was aimed on implicating the D's in their actions, and to thus cover their asses. Also, it is far from sure that she was fully informed. It isn't as if the Bushies were cooperative as far as oversight is concerned, if I look back at their stonwalling.

Their calculation was correct. It was slow poison. It is now showing the intended effect. In another metaphor, by telling Pelosi and other D's the Bushies sowed the seeds for D infighting. Today people talk about Pelosi knew about bad stuff (that she was told was secret so she couldn't tell anybody), and not about the guys who did the bad bad stuff (that they held secret and didn't tell anybody about).

 

I believe you Rags, and it makes total partisan sense. But the people doing that when the economy is tanking, both Dems and Reps, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

I'm not so sure it's that Pelosi knew about the bad stuff as much as it is Pelosi was told about the bad stuff. It is quite possible she simply glazed over the stuff she didn't care to listen to.

 

Here's Pelosi's major problem: If such briefings were held, the confidential nature of the topics being discussed would be a security issue. As such, the CIA would forbid anyone from taking notes at the briefing. However, the CIA would take their own notes and file them in case the president or other high ranking official ever requested the information again. The problem is the notes are written by the CIA and approved by the CIA. They are not shown to Congress for approval before being considered the official record of events. As such, the CIA's side of the story is the only record of the story that exists. This is not going to be a "he said, she said" case. It's going to be an "I said - and my side is the only side that matters" case.

In this regard, Pelosi may be screwed with a capital S. She has no official notes to back up her story, and to prove she is in the right will have to debunk the CIA's account of what happened - tricky in the best of circumstances.

So does Pelosi have anything going for her? Actually she does. So far the CIA has cited four dates in April and September 2003 when the CIA briefed Congress on enhanced interrogation techniques, and specifically on waterboarding. However, former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) who at the time was also on the Intelligence Committee disagrees. Why is Graham to be believed? Because the guy is a little neurotic. He keeps a journal of his life in these little spiral notebooks. Every day he wakes up, he weighs himself and records his weight in the journal and what time he got up. Then he writes down what he eats for breakfast. What suit he wears. The color of his shirt, tie and socks. He travels to work and records the time down to the minute of his commute from door to door. His journal continues throughout the day, with a list of meetings he attends, people he meets, and generally what he does throughout his work day. Unsurprisingly, he also writes down what time he eats lunch and what he has for lunch. He records what he eats for dinner. The final entry in his notebook every day looks something like this:

9:30 - 10:00 P.M. review and updated notebook.

Which brings us back to the meetings. On three of the four dates that the CIA claims to have breifed Congress on enhanced interrogation techniques, Graham has no record of a meeting with the CIA in his notebooks for those day. (And while it would be illegal for Graham to write down what specifically was discussed at those meetings - remember no note taking! - it is OK to record that you attended a CIA breifing in your notebook.) Given the meticulousness of which Graham records his day to day activities, it is highly unlikely that he simply forgot to record these meetings, and it certainly calls the accuracy of the CIA note taking into question.

CIA Director Pannetta, when confronted with is information said, "I think the CIA notes are accurate, but it is ultimately up to Congress to decide if what the CIA notes state took place actually took place." Which is more than a little infuriating considering that no one in Congress was allowed to take notes as to what was discussed, so how are they to make that determination?