Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Crouchingllama]

What you really mean Kuya is that despite that Obama stands for change, the Washington machine, hell the entire US political machine, doesn't change overnight and we're still looking at politicians operating in the same old manner?

[Crouchingllama]

To clarify, I voted for Obama, despise the Bush/Cheney administration on a number of counts, torture being one of them. Investigation is the right thing to do, but is it more beneficial to the country in the short run than the rest of Obama's plans? Yeah, super-cynical, but...moral high ground lost, economy failing, already trying to plan how to get re-elected so he can bring more real change to the country... if the investigation drags out that the Dems approved this, then what? Teh GOP comes screaming back and who takes over in 2012? I know, I know, lesser of two evils, tacitly approve of something disgusting and amoral that was shoved down the country's throat or burn the political capital that could be spent on other projects to do the right thing on this one subject?

Sad world if my fears above are correct, isn't it?

[Kuya]

To clarify, I voted for Obama, despise the Bush/Cheney administration on a number of counts, torture being one of them. Investigation is the right thing to do, but is it more beneficial to the country in the short run than the rest of Obama's plans? Yeah, super-cynical, but...moral high ground lost, economy failing, already trying to plan how to get re-elected so he can bring more real change to the country... if the investigation drags out that the Dems approved this, then what? Teh GOP comes screaming back and who takes over in 2012? I know, I know, lesser of two evils, tacitly approve of something disgusting and amoral that was shoved down the country's throat or burn the political capital that could be spent on other projects to do the right thing on this one subject?

Sad world if my fears above are correct, isn't it?

Tossing law out of the window because the ends justify the means? I didn't know we entered into the territory of moral relativity to try and justify not investigating.

Sure, you can argue that, just as long as you accept the Bush's administration's equal right to disregard the law to do what it thinks is right for the whole country, even if it is morally depraved and illegal. Disregarding the law when Bush does it is bad, but when the Dems do it it's okay because of the good things they can give us? I don't buy it. The law demands an investigation, it is both what law asks and morality tells us. So the debate can be simplified to: Morality and Law vs. Political interests.

[Crouchingllama]

Tossing law out of the window because the ends justify the means? I didn't know we entered into the territory of moral relativity to try and justify not investigating.

Sure, you can argue that, just as long as you accept the Bush's administration's equal right to disregard the law to do what it thinks is right for the whole country, even if it is morally depraved and illegal. Disregarding the law when Bush does it is bad, but when the Dems do it it's okay because of the good things they can give us? I don't buy it. The law demands an investigation, it is both what law asks and morality tells us. So the debate can be simplified to: Morality and Law vs. Political interests.

Agreed, but can the whole system be changed by one man in 4 years?
It sure doesn't look like I'm wrong on this to me, which makes me a sad Human-American.

[Kuya]

Famous economist Paul Krugman on the fallacy of saying that investigating this scandal will divert attention from the economic crisis:

What about the argument that investigating the Bush administration’s abuses will impede efforts to deal with the crises of today? Even if that were true — even if truth and justice came at a high price — that would arguably be a price we must pay: laws aren’t supposed to be enforced only when convenient. But is there any real reason to believe that the nation would pay a high price for accountability?

For example, would investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?

Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy. Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in the way of any Congressional investigations.

I don’t know about you, but I think America is capable of uncovering the truth and enforcing the law even while it goes about its other business.

Anyone want to call the Nobel Prize winning economist a liar?

edit: do you guys remember that time Obama had the political capital to have the republicans support his stimulus bill before any of this started happening?

No, i didn't either.

It’s hard, then, not to be cynical when some of the people who should have spoken out against what was happening, but didn’t, now declare that we should forget the whole era — for the sake of the country, of course.

Sorry, but what we really should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws.

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking forward — because it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.

I love you Krugman.

[Crouchingllama]

Oh I agree with Krugman on this, he's using logic. But that doesn't mean shit to the spin machines....

[Rhinox]

Got to love Neocon logic. When it comes to the Border and Immigration "We must kick all the Illegals out its the law!" But when it comes to torture "Why can't we put the past behind us?"

[Leif]

I intentionally made this post long so I wouldn’t be accused of trying to get my post count up to get into the advanced section of the game I don’t even play anymore. I could just get my post count bumped up to 15 if I actually cared that much.


The path to where we are at now has taken some interesting turns.

Ronald Reagan took a strong stance against terrorism during his days as President. After US Embassies in locations like Beruit and Iran were bombed, along with the 1983 bombing of Marine Baracks, Reagan bombed Libya, became involved in Iraq and Iran, and also caused the end of Soviet totalitarianism while also throwing in the added perk of “accidentally” bombing France.

George H.W. Bush went to war with Iraq following the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Liberals at the time criticized the President for the war. After 9/11, some of the same liberals blasted him for not completely obliterating Iraq back in the 90s.

Then we had Clinton who had a long-standing policy to not respond to terrorists, until of course, Monica Lewinsky.

After George W. Bush won the 2000 election, one of his most important goals was to take an aggressive stance on terrorism. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States led invasions into the terrorist havens of Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have since killed and captured lots of terrorists, killed or almost completely disabled Osama Bin Laden, guaranteed that not a single terrorist attack would have occurred on American soil, and prevented Saddam Hussein from reacquiring WMDs.

Since that time, we have effectively shipped radical Islamic terrorists to our detention facilities in Guantanamo and were even able to outsource our torture to some of the Europeans that still think reasonably, like Poland. As part of this process, we have tortured America-haters who are willing to stop at nothing to see their sickening fantasies realized, which has its own perks, but we are also extracting potentially reliable intelligence.

I refresh your mind back to World War II, in which the Japanese tortured and killed American POWs, the Vietnam War, in which the North Vietnamese also interrogated Americans, and the Gulf War, in which Iraq also tortured US POWs. With all this in mind, the “Geneva Convention” clearly isn’t holding any weight in other enemy countries. At least we are able to disguise our activities reasonably well.

Today, the opposition to war and the related tactics (including torture as a vital component to national security and war strategy) comes from the groups of people like:
• History, English, Psychology and other liberal arts college professors that are subsidized with tax payer money into having a crappy lecturer job, teaching general requirement courses, and breeding more liberals, while simultaneously being awarded the gift of being able to play the role of full-time Left-wing political activists
• Liberal havens of the internet and “unpartisan” news sources
• Internet forums where the threads are crowded with anti-War pro-terrorism rhetoric and where anyone with a remotely conservative view that interrupts the gossip column is subsequently squelched for talking too much. With quotes from the above sources running rampant, including the fanatic Liberals of The New York Times, The AP, blogs, and about every major national newspaper and news agency with the exception of Fox News, which has been cited by both the current Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell, and Hillary Clinton, both Democrats, as the “fairest” of all news sources, it’s hard to get a word in without another poster calling for punishment of people we owe thousands of lives to, supported by more propaganda and lies from the Times and The Huffington Post.

These groups attack military and national security tactics during wartime. This a time where it’s us or them. Who do you pick? If you picked them, you just answered the one question that just secured your position as a traitor. Congratulations.

When Muslim terrorists killed 200 people and wounded an additional 1800 in the 2006 Madrid train bombings, a nation whose national security policy consisted of a couple of tip lines, it became more than clear that it doesn’t matter if you are aggressively perusing anti-terrorism policies. They try to attack you anyways. This is what Reagan, Bush #1, and Bush #2 both got right. Every lapse in this understanding has resulted in more attacks (see Clinton).

It is also clear that our previous national security policy worked. Why it’s suddenly this big “human rights” issue is oblivious to me. When in wartime, we don’t have the luxury of gambling American lives. If human rights for terrorists outweigh American lives in your mind, I’ll let you in on a little secret. You can’t have both. America won’t be its safest if you aren’t willing to fight for it.

As for the Geneva Convention, it’s a nice document. If terrorists actually followed it, it might actually be worth reading. It seems that people forget that international policy is whatever the USA-UK-Canada intelligence community says it is.

If anybody has any response that is based on facts and not a deluded sense that I’m this big troll out to destroy the thread blessed by Jeremiah Wright with B. Hussein Obama’s holy name, I’d be glad to hear them.

[archibaldcrane]

Stop replying to Leif. You are just giving the forum terrorists exactly what they want. Torture him instead by ignoring him.

.

[Tomk]

At least it was a thought out post and not one-line attacks. It was completely irrelevant since there was no proof given that Reagan and Bush#1 used torture.

We are talking about torture here Leif.

Edit: ok I said that wrong you do talk about torture but you gave "eye for an eye" crap.

[Leif]

Reagan and Bush #1 showed that fighting terrorism was an effective strategy and screaming for "withdrawing troops" and "don't torture, no matter what" only succeed in prompting more attacks.

It has very much to do with torture.

[Tomk]

I'm sorry Archibaldcrane, I should have listened to you.

[Lurking Badger]

Land of the free and the brave.

[Maxxthepenguin]

YouTube - The Obama Deception Part 1/12

[Correction]

Reagan and Bush #1 showed that fighting terrorism was an effective strategy and screaming for "withdrawing troops" and "don't torture, no matter what" only succeed in prompting more attacks.

Someone's ig'nant of South American history...

[Leif]

How vague. You almost sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Burdon is on you, my friend.

[Correction]

How vague. You almost sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Burdon is on you, my friend.

Contras

Mujahideen

the idea that Reagan/Bush championed the cause of stopping terrorism is fucking laughable.

[Beckwin]

I refresh your mind back to World War II, in which the Japanese tortured and killed American POWs, the Vietnam War, in which the North Vietnamese also interrogated Americans, and the Gulf War, in which Iraq also tortured US POWs. With all this in mind, the “Geneva Convention” clearly isn’t holding any weight in other enemy countries. At least we are able to disguise our activities reasonably well.

Can you guess what we did to Japanese soldiers who waterboarded POWs?





















spoilers: we executed them.

[Beckwin]

this is pretty funny, and illuminates why the "opinions" deserve some looking into:

The Guantanamo Bay Torture Memos: For Kids! | Cracked.com

[Demosthenes11]

Famous economist Paul Krugman on the fallacy of saying that investigating this scandal will divert attention from the economic crisis:



Anyone want to call the Nobel Prize winning economist a liar?

edit: do you guys remember that time Obama had the political capital to have the republicans support his stimulus bill before any of this started happening?

No, i didn't either.

I love you Krugman.

it's fine and dandy to have someone say we COULD prosecute them at no cost, but I really don't think that's the issue. It's about decades of status quo politics that show the political elite are, in fact, above the law and society. There is no precedent of a US president being prosecuted for his atrocities in office - and I think we can agree there has been some pretty bad ones. The reason? frankly I'm not quite sure. I'd love to see bush and cheney prosecuted and change to happen here, but it's absolutely ridiculous to expect that to happen. There will be a hoopla for a while about it all; maybe a few people will go to jail a few months. But in a year from now, the case will be closed and nothing really changed in the end.

why are people cynical about anything happening? because it never has and we have no reason to believe it can. Until Obama comes out and says "I want EVERYONE involved to get what they deserve," I will continue to be cynical. It's like thinking SE is gonna suddenly spill their guts to the public lol