Obama to decide today on torture memos

[Khajit]

Questioning the government doesn't amount to treason at all.

Promoting tactics that favor terrorism and put Americans at risk is essentially siding with the enemy. Why don't we just surrender?

Putting Americans into Iraq KNOWING that the intelligence gathered about it's links to terrorism was false has killed how many at this point? Apparently as of Dec. 25, 2006 it's surpassed the setp 11 death toll. great job preserving American lives by having them die fighting non terrorists in the name of the war on terror. Torturing people isn't going to stop terrorism. it's promoting it and giving the terrorists legitimate reason to hate America as if sponsoring a state founded upon mass murder wasn't enough reason for them to hate you.

[Elvis]

Don't forget the civil war. Possibly between 100,000 to 1 million dead Iraqi civilians. 5 million Iraqis who have fled the country and countless stuck in limbo. The destruction to the country's infrastructure and environment. The influx of terrorism in the country. 5000+ dead American soldiers. The other deaths that don't get reported such as the suicides of returning soldiers being as high as during the Vietnam War. Etc.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

America has always settled policy differences through elections. Instead, we might begin to settle them through prosecution, after one group loses power. Now that's some serious change.

[Kuya]

According to Swamp, torture = policy difference.

What do you guys think of that?

[Tomk]

Yeah a blow job = impeachment but punching a defenseless person in the face is American Pride!

[Khajit]

Don't forget the civil war. Possibly between 100,000 to 1 million dead Iraqi civilians. 5 million Iraqis who have fled the country and countless stuck in limbo. The destruction to the country's infrastructure and environment. The influx of terrorism in the country. 5000+ dead American soldiers. The other deaths that don't get reported such as the suicides of returning soldiers being as high as during the Vietnam War. Etc.

Since when have the deaths of non Americans counted to America? Venezuela was forced into a civil war(by America installing an "evil" dictator) that lasted for from 1951 and only ended in 1996 which completely decimated the country. Middle eastern people are even more out pf fashion than Latino's atm so i doubt he'd care about a petty thing like non American lives. he's already stated/implied that torturing innocent people is a perfectly acceptable idea anyway.

[Leif]

Putting Americans into Iraq KNOWING that the intelligence gathered about it's links to terrorism was false has killed how many at this point? Apparently as of Dec. 25, 2006 it's surpassed the setp 11 death toll. great job preserving American lives by having them die fighting non terrorists in the name of the war on terror. Torturing people isn't going to stop terrorism. it's promoting it and giving the terrorists legitimate reason to hate America as if sponsoring a state founded upon mass murder wasn't enough reason for them to hate you.

Iraq has been working quite well. We have a lot of people in Guantanamo that arn't the "non-terrorists" that you describe. Oh, we also got some oil and killed a leader of the country who had the capability to produce biological, nuclear, and other dangerous weapons at the click of his fingers. Oh, and we also captured, tortured and extracted information out of terrorists that none of us are even classified to hear about.

I certainly hope your policy to "prevent terrorism" isn't to make the terrorists happy and psycho-analyze their intentions beyond the obvious fact that they want to see the United States, Canada, and Great Brittan reduced to rubble. If we could effectively read the minds of radical extremists we would be putting them into group therapy at torture camp.

As for the death toll, I again reinforce my other point. Chicago still exists.

Don't forget the civil war. Possibly between 100,000 to 1 million dead Iraqi civilians. 5 million Iraqis who have fled the country and countless stuck in limbo. The destruction to the country's infrastructure and environment. The influx of terrorism in the country. 5000+ dead American soldiers. The other deaths that don't get reported such as the suicides of returning soldiers being as high as during the Vietnam War. Etc.

Apparently the fact that we haven't had a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11 is outweighed by some big numbers of casualties in Iraq. It's an unfortunate cost, but at no point can we outweigh sacrifice saving countless American lives for Iraqi lives.

America has always settled policy differences through elections. Instead, we might begin to settle them through prosecution, after one group loses power. Now that's some serious change.

Your idea of "get them" doesn't get anybody anywhere. Individuals who practiced coercive interrogation officially sanctioned to do so and you're screaming for their heads on a platter. For that reason there isn't a chance anybody will be prosecuted.

We should just have each administration arrest the previous administration to create "policy differences". That's a real solution. Now go stage your own revolt.

EDIT: On a hunch of mine, I'm guessing that the author of the above quote was being sarcastic. I apologize if that's the case.
EDIT: While I am usually stunningly accurate at predicting who hates America, after looking at SwampdonkeyPLD's sig, I'm now convinced he was being sarcastic. My sincerest gratitude to you for making your post. I'm sorry for the returned sarcasm.

[Leif]

Yeah a blow job = impeachment but punching a defenseless person in the face is American Pride!

Thank God they arn't armed with bombs and nuclear weapons. I think we should have an out-right nuclear war with the Middle East so we can preserve our "American Pride".

Edit: Bill Clinton was impeached because he was a traitor, not because he got a blowjob.

[archibaldcrane]

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

[Kuya]

Leif

I'm having the admins review you for possible post count spamming, if you continue posting from here on till until the admins have checked you, i will ban you.

[Tomk]

Oh, we also got some oil

Yeah... O.K.

Why did I waste my time trying to talk to you?

[Khajit]

check the Ip too for the .000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that it comes from a government location and the laughs that would ensue in that event.

[Tristam]

America has always settled policy differences through elections. Instead, we might begin to settle them through prosecution, after one group loses power. Now that's some serious change.

If policy is illegal, then it should be settled through prosecution.....

[Kuya]

To further hammer the point of how serious these abuses are, take note that the FBI was not the only one to contend that these techniques were illegal and would lead to prosecution, in fact, the Army, Marines, and Air Force also advised against it:

Air Force: "serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques...Some of these techniques could be construed as 'torture' as that crime is defined by 18 U.S.C 2340." Further, they were concerned that "implementation of these techniques could preclude the ability to prosecute the individuals interrogated," because "Level III techniques will almost certainly result in any statements obtained being declared as coerced and involuntary, and therefore inadmissible....Additionally, the techniques described may be subject to challenge as failing to meet the requirements outlined in military order to treat detainees humanely and to provide them with adequate food, water, shelter and medical treatment." They called for an in-depth legal review.

Criminal Investigative Task Force (CITM): Chief Legal Advisor to the CITF at Gitmo, Maj Sam W. McCahon, writes "Both the utility and the legality of applying certain techniques identified in the memorandum listed above are, in my opinion, questionable. Any policy decision to use the Tier III techniques, or any techniques inconsistent with the analysis herein, will be contrary to my recommendation. The aggressive techniques should not occur at GTMO where both CITF and the intelligence community are conducting interviews and interrogations." He calls for further review and concludes by saying "I cannot advocate any action, interrogation or otherwise, that is predicated upon the principal that all is well if the ends justify the means and others are not aware of how we conduct our business."

Army: The Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans writes: "As set forth in the enclosed memoranda, the Army interposes significant legal, policy and practical concerns regarding most of the Category II and all of the Category III techniques proposed." They recommend "a comprehensive legal review of this proposal in its entirety by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice."

Navy: recommends that "more detailed interagency legal and political review be conducted on proposed techniques."

Marine Corp: expressed strong reservations, since "several of the Category II and III techniques arguably violate federal law, and would expose our service members to possible prosecution." Called for further review.

When Donald Rumsfeld approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" for Guantanamo Bay in 2002, he did so in defiance of the recommendations of the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the Air Force and the Criminal Investigation Task Force.

These are serious crimes. Also, have you guys also heard, because i cannot recall if i said it, that the abuses in Gitmo were not due to some bad apples, as we were told, but they were actually authorized and encouraged by Rumsfeld? I don't recall if i posted the link to this information.

I think what we can pull from this that the FBI and the US military are the real heroes here (i know, i know, i might get shit for that statement). They insisted on standing for what was right and what they thought America stood for, granted, some members of the CIA also said they were not happy doing this at all.

[Beckwin]

America has always settled policy differences through elections. Instead, we might begin to settle them through prosecution, after one group loses power. Now that's some serious change.

You see, we elected people who we thought would clean up our Bush-era trashed government and image. Restoring, or at least improving, transparency and our national ethics was a major part of the Obama platform and that's what the people voted for.

Your strawman is fucking terrible and you should feel terrible.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You see, we elected people who we thought would clean up our Bush-era trashed government and image. Restoring, or at least improving, transparency and our national ethics was a major part of the Obama platform and that's what the people voted for.

Exactly. None of the above includes prosecution.

Edit: Looks like Obama is going to release photo's as well.

[Tristam]

Yet another good read about the ineffectiveness of torture

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/op...=1&ref=opinion

Additionally, for those that have read the memos, the scientists that the memos cited are absolutely fucking furious that their work was used to justify torture. The science behind the descriptions used in the memos to seemingly suggest that permanent physical or mental harm would not result from the interrogations was completely wrong and the scientists have said now that the interrogations are far far far beyond anything even close to what they were testing, and that no valid comparison could be drawn.

This is yet another example of the war on science via the Bush administration, what possible respect can you have for this outlook on science? I'm furious now, I think anything less than prosecutions for the judges and medical professionals that signed off on this trash is a waste of time, we've seriously, SERIOUSLY compromised many aspects of how we make judgments and policy. I've never been so disappointed in my country.

[Tristam]

I think what we can pull from this that the FBI and the US military are the real heroes here (i know, i know, i might get shit for that statement). They insisted on standing for what was right and what they thought America stood for, granted, some members of the CIA also said they were not happy doing this at all.

New info suggests that our torture was outsourced to contractors in many cases, just more evidence that the people who signed off on torture KNEW what they were proposing was wrong.

[Kuya]

As i've said, these two men, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen must be prosecuted and have their licenses as psychologists stripped. They completely broke the oath to do no harm and they are a disgrace to the field of psychology. Furthermore, me and some professors from my psychology faculty have discussed that the APA should be investigated for cooperation (which they only refused to give after a grass roots vote by psychologists overruled the APA).

[Kuya]

In regards to the argument that the GOP is currently making that this is a partisan attack, as can clearly be seen by Swampy reflecting that point of view, i will post Glenn Greenwald on the matter who so eloquently presents to us what is going on:

Bush-defending opponents of investigations and prosecutions think they've discovered a trump card: the claim that Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman were briefed on the torture programs and assented to them. The core assumption here -- shared by most establishment pundits -- is that the call for criminal investigations is nothing more than a partisan-driven desire to harm Republicans and Bush officials ("retribution"), and if they can show that some Democratic officials might be swept up in the inquiry, then, they assume, that will motivate investigation proponents to think twice.

The reality is exactly the opposite (as usual) of what is being depicted in our media discussions. The call for criminal investigations of torture and other forms of government criminality is the most apolitical and non-partisan argument one can make. The ones who are trying to politicize the justice system and exploit the rule of law for partisan gain are those who are arguing against criminal investigations. John Cole explained this point perfectly yesterday:

At some point they are going to figure out that for most of us, we don’t care if the person has a (R) or (D) behind their name when they were instituting a policy of torture. That is what is so depressing (to me, at least) about the Ari Fleischer’s and the Thiessen’s of the world. They honestly seem to think this is nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt, the same old Washington gotcha politics. It isn’t. When you torture people, you have crossed a really clear line. Innocent people are dead. Lives have been ruined. Our international reputation has been destroyed. Yes, the Bush administration will get most of the blame, but that is because they were in charge and they did this, not because of what party they happen to belong to. If Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi knew about this and ok’d it, they are just as culpable.

Precisely. To be fair, there are disputes about what exactly Democratic leaders were and were not told, and there are disputes about what they said or did not say. That's what happens when a government operates in virtually total secrecy and does everything possible to stonewall public disclosure. The dispute over the role of Democratic leaders further bolsters the need for full-scale investigations: we ought to know everything that led to these crimes, including the true extent to which the "opposition party" was informed about what was being done and approved of it. The failure of the Democratic Party to meaningfully oppose what was done over the last eight years is a crucial part of the story here and light needs to be shined on that as much as anything else. I don't know of a single person who has devoted themselves to arguing for investigations who contests that fact.

Interestingly -- and encouragingly -- the potency of this principle is such that a call for criminal investigations is now slowly though clearly starting to seep into our mainstream discussions. In The New York Times, Paul Krugman today emphatically calls for criminal investigations, mocking Obama supporters who claim that applying the rule of law will unduly interfere with Obama's political agenda and pointing out that prosecutions are needed "not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a nation of laws." In The Washington Post today, the now-Pulitzer-Prize-winning Eugene Robinson echoes this argument:

The many roads of inquiry into the Bush administration's abusive "interrogation techniques" all lead to one stubborn, inconvenient fact: Torture is not just immoral but also illegal. This means that once we learn the whole truth, the law will oblige us to act on it. . . . The rule of law is one of this nation's founding principles. It's not optional. Our laws against torture demand to be obeyed -- and demand to be enforced.

As Andrew Sullivan hinted at last night, my claim yesterday that not a single "establishment pundit" has been advocating criminal investigations was a bit overstated -- Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann have been admirably banging this drum on MSNBC for weeks (and Sullivan for much longer than that) -- but a simple, non-partisan call to apply the rule of law to our government leaders was largely missing from most mainstream discussions, until now. As torture disclosures increase -- the ACLU yesterday announced that it has forced the DOD to agree to release many new photos showing American abuses of detainees outside of Abu Ghraib -- the pressure is clearly rising for criminal investigations.

Nonetheless, as they have done for years, Democratic leaders continue to lead the way in shielding Bush crimes from scrutiny and stifling public disclosure of what was done. Obama met yesterday with Congressional leaders and emphatically argued against the establishment of a Truth Commission, insisting that such an inquiry would interfere with his political agenda. Senate Majority "Leader" Harry Reid then dutifully and obediently announced that Senate Democrats will block any such investigations in favor of a Senate Intelligence Committee proceeding that will occur largely in secret and will not be completed until the end of the year, at least (I remember when Democrats used to mock GOP leaders for having Dick Cheney come to Congress and give them their marching orders). Democratic Congressional leaders are doing now what they did throughout the Bush presidency: namely, pretending to oppose what was done while doing everything possible to protect and enable it and shield the wrongdoers from scrutiny (in large part because some of the wrongdoing was by their own party).

Democrats spent the last several years vehemently complaining about the "politicization of the Justice Department" under Alberto Gonzales. Yet so many of these same Democrats are now demanding that the Obama DOJ refrain from prosecuting Bush criminals based on purely political grounds: namely, that those prosecutions will interfere with Obama's political agenda.

As Michael Isikoff pointed out on Rachel Maddow's show earlier this week, what Gonzales did there (blocking a criminal investigation of Harman because the investigation would undermine the White House's political interests) is extremely similar to what many Obama loyalists are arguing now (that criminal investigations of Bush crimes should be blocked because such investigations would undermine the White House's political interests). That is what made the efforts of Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs and even Obama to dictate who would and would not be prosecuted so improper: it the role of independent Justice Department officials to make that decision based on purely legal and apolitical grounds, not the role of White House officials to try to interfere for political reasons. I was preceded yesterday on Warren Olney's To the Point program by Philip Zelikow, and Zelikow said: "I really don't think the President should have opinions on who should or should not be prosecuted -- full stop."

Don't listen to shrill GOP pundits trying to divert attention away from the fact that the investigation will target everyone, both Dems and Reps, that is the point, and don't listen to those Dem supporters who are trying to argue that investigating would hurt their political interests (while ignoring that that kind of mentally it exactly what enables people to disregard the law for their own selfish interests); torture is a moral wrong and illegal, this has nothing to do with political interests and everything to do with upholding the rule of law.

edit: resolution you can sign to have Bybee impeached.