News Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter humanino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on President Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA operatives involved in interrogation practices labeled as torture, which has sparked outrage among human rights advocates and former detainees. Critics argue that failing to hold anyone accountable sends a dangerous message and risks repeating past abuses. Some participants highlight the complexity of assigning blame, noting that operatives acted under orders from higher-ups, raising questions about the entire chain of command's responsibility. There is a call for a special prosecutor to investigate, despite concerns about the potential futility and costs of such actions. Ultimately, the conversation reflects a deep concern for the implications of this decision on U.S. moral standing and legal accountability.
  • #61


Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show, said, "There's a lot of evidence that remains to be gathered. And I think no good prosecutor would make a decision about going forward until he had all the evidence in place." According to the New York Times, "CIA interrogators used waterboarding...266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported." The Washington Post editorializes, "Now comes the revelation that CIA interrogators were far from restrained in their use of this ancient and cruel technique."

266 times on just two detainees. If water boarding was as successful as was proclaimed just what information did they expect to get after the first success?

Cheney Wants More Memos Released Former Vice President Dick Cheney, on Fox News' Hannity , said, "I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process. ... And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos. ... Let's have an honest debate." Former Bush aide Marc A. Thiessen, in a Washington Post op-ed, writes that "Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists 'did not make us safer.' This is patently false."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090421.htm

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62


LowlyPion said:
But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues.
Like what ? Some people have been guilty of putting "security" before the respect of another human being's dignity. Now money and flaws in the financial system should be put in such priority that we forget about fundamental human rights ? If some humans out there had more dignity, your financial system might be better too BTW
 
  • #63


LowlyPion said:
But you must agree that such pursuits would certainly absorb many news cycles at a time when the country should be focusing on bigger issues.

Like Obama's dog, and something stupid Miss California said? Oh, and there is a woman on Youtube who sang a song from "Le Miz" very well. These are the things I see the news focusing on lately.

No, I disagree. There is plenty of time to handle this issue alongside the other important ones, and by my personal standards I'm not sure it's possible for an issue to be more important than this. By this same argument Obama should stop working on health care to focus on the economy, or whatever it was the Republicans were saying last week.

And might we not as well risk precipitating an endless cycle of recriminations with each change in administration, with each change in power rummaging through the past, in order to disadvantage the vanquished even further?

Actually I'm all in favor of this. If the Obama administration breaks the law, they deserve recriminations.
 
  • #64


Ivan Seeking said:
I still don't see your point. A prosecution of these individuals may set the Republicans on fire, but it is still a matter of law. IMO, those who authorized these tactics are almost certainly guilty of crimes and should be prosecuted...
If that is the case (and I do not think it is), then absent a pardon, isn't the Obama administration complicit and guilty of Obstruction of Justice? That is, the implication is that the Justice Department has the option of arbitrarily deciding, based on internal political decisions, to prosecute when there is clear evidence of a crime. I assert they have no such option given your predicate of 'certainly guilty of crimes'. So either your predicate is wrong or the Justice Dept. is breaking the law.
 
  • #65


humanino said:
Like what ? Some people have been guilty of putting "security" before the respect of another human being's dignity. Now money and flaws in the financial system should be put in such priority that we forget about fundamental human rights ? If some humans out there had more dignity, your financial system might be better too BTW
There are many heinous crimes which are taken to trial and only some of them receive widespread news coverage. These people need to be taken to trial based on the merit of the case and not based on how much media coverage there is or how many people want to see these people rot in jail cells based on the media coverage. We are not even certain who all could theoretically be charged let alone the merit of their individual cases. Much of the information that would tell us about the merits of the cases is classified so we can not know. We are theoretically supposed to be able to trust the current administration to do the right thing. Under Bush I would not have had such trust. Now I feel that I may be able to justifiably feel that trust.
 
  • #66
edward said:
266 times on just two detainees. If water boarding was as successful as was proclaimed just what information did they expect to get after the first success?



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090421.htm

Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

Cheney does make a valid point
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/20/cheney-calls-release-memos-showing-results-interrogation-efforts-1862515294/

Telling half of the story isn't fair.

Maybe the people who escaped death by "man made disasters" would like to know the details?

As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

It sounds like waterboarding as a torture is comparable to shoplifting as a crime.

There are certainly other (evil) types:
http://www.medievality.com/torture.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0524072torture1.html
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/9363/history.htm

We know that we were not attacked post Sept 11...if you want to say Bush over-reacted and excessive methods will be stopped is one thing...but the procedures and tactics must be replaced with something that will yield equally safe (to us) results.

It's easy to criticize...now that all of the tactics and secrets are out of the bag...how will Obama keep us safe?

Let's hope he has an alternative plan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67


WhoWee said:
As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

Waterboarding (apparently) invokes the sense of imminent drowning, thus whilst it may not be life threatening in that sense, it is certainly perceived by the torturee as being life threatening. This would be classed as severe mental suffering and, as per the UN convention, be illegal.


We know that we were not attacked post Sept 11...if you want to say Bush over-reacted and excessive methods will be stopped is one thing...but the procedures and tactics must be replaced with something that will yield equally safe (to us) results.

Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11? Correlation does not imply causation (that's stats 101)!
 
  • #68


cristo said:
Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11?

That made me think of ..
achievement.jpg
 
  • #69


I don't buy the argument that Bush/Cheney and their tactics "kept the US safe". To the contrary, they have polarized much of the Muslim world against the US and made it easier for radical groups to recruit. There were NO radical fundamentalist Muslim groups operating in Iraq prior to the US invasion - Saddam wouldn't tolerate their existence. It is indisputable that there were Shi'ite groups in Iraq that were aligned with Iran, but they were kept under check by the Sunni-dominated government and were not much of a threat. Under Saddam, women in Iraq were able to pursue higher education, hold positions of responsibility, and live in a society that is far more secular and free of religious repression than most of the arab world.
 
  • #70


WhoWee said:
As for waterboarding as a torture method...if someone was tortured 183 times in a month...it must not be very dangerous...uncomfortable/unpleasant...YES...life-threatening...apparently not.

Are you suggesting that laws are meant for your enemies only ?
 
  • #71


cristo said:
Waterboarding (apparently) invokes the sense of imminent drowning, thus whilst it may not be life threatening in that sense, it is certainly perceived by the torturee as being life threatening. This would be classed as severe mental suffering and, as per the UN convention, be illegal.




Please, where is your proof that such aggressive methods saved you from being attacked post 9/11? Correlation does not imply causation (that's stats 101)!

First, 183/30 is roughly 6 times per day...don't you think (after the first day) the "torturee" would have figured out he wasn't going to drown?

As for specific proof...read the Cheney transcript...he's asking for those details to be released...it's my entire point.
 
  • #72


turbo-1 said:
I don't buy the argument that Bush/Cheney and their tactics "kept the US safe". To the contrary, they have polarized much of the Muslim world against the US and made it easier for radical groups to recruit. There were NO radical fundamentalist Muslim groups operating in Iraq prior to the US invasion - Saddam wouldn't tolerate their existence. It is indisputable that there were Shi'ite groups in Iraq that were aligned with Iran, but they were kept under check by the Sunni-dominated government and were not much of a threat. Under Saddam, women in Iraq were able to pursue higher education, hold positions of responsibility, and live in a society that is far more secular and free of religious repression than most of the arab world.

And releasing this information somehow will reduce this anger?

Obama might have just thrown fuel on the fire...and at the same time thrown away his only "firefighting gear".
 
  • #73


WhoWee said:
First, 183/30 is roughly 6 times per day...don't you think (after the first day) the "torturee" would have figured out he wasn't going to drown?

You're trolling, right? How about I stab you in the arm 6 times a day. Don't be worried though, you won't die!

As for specific proof...read the Cheney transcript...he's asking for those details to be released...it's my entire point.

It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!


Anyway, whether this torture worked or not is irrelevant to the main point that this all brings up. RootX got it spot on: is the law only meant for your enemies to abide by?
 
  • #74


I think the CIA torture methods should be allowed in cases of foreign threats against our national security. Weren't these approved methods at the time?
 
  • #75
rootX said:
Are you suggesting that laws are meant for your enemies only ?

Do you live in a port city? Are you safer now...or where you safer 2 years ago?

Do you really believe that if we know a terrorist act is underway that we should wait until the "crime" takes place before we take action? Compare your answer to the Blago situation...why didn't the prosecutor let that situation play out...to see if a crime would actually take place...because it would do harm?

As for care of prisoners, we've certainly done worse... consider Andersonville
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/classics/andersonville/1.html

Should Obama also denounce and apologize for Lincoln?

Obama said he wants to move forward...he should keep his word and focus on continuing to protect us from the REAL EVILS in this world.
 
  • #76


cristo said:
You're trolling, right? How about I stab you in the arm 6 times a day. Don't be worried though, you won't die!



It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!


Anyway, whether this torture worked or not is irrelevant to the main point that this all brings up. RootX got it spot on: is the law only meant for your enemies to abide by?

Apparently, YOU can say whatever you like...by the way, did you threaten me?
 
  • #77


cristo said:
It's very convenient, isn't it? He knows those documents will never be declassified (since if they do, they prove the CIA tortured people!) so he can basically say whatever he likes!

By your logic, it's very convenient for Obama.
 
  • #78


WhoWee said:
did you threaten me?
Look it's easy. I suggest you experience it by yourself and then come back to describe how it feels. You know it has been done right ? The videos one can find never claim it is acceptable. It feels like drowning, and only by lengthy exercise can one accept the pain and the stress to make it less horrible. It does not make the pain disappear either.
 
  • #79


WhoWee said:
Do you live in a port city? Are you safer now...or where you safer 2 years ago?
Nobody in a port city is any safer than they were a decade ago. If you live in a port city that handles a lot of containers, you should know that exporters sending containers to the US are still not required to have the contents of those containers inspected, certified and sealed prior to shipment. The cost (and delay) of inspection are borne by the US and the companies buying the imported goods, which is absolutely wrong. Free trade should not be "reckless trade" in which foreign entities are allowed to ship uninspected cargo to the US and make us pay for the security needed to screen them. Security should be mandated at the port of origin, and the costs should be bundled into the cost of the imported products. US workers are at a disadvantage to low-wage workers in other countries already - we shouldn't have to pay more for reasonable security.

We have heard a lot about radiation monitors and dirty bombs - how about biological agents, nerve agents, or even conventional explosives? BTW, if your port city has a LNG terminal, you should know that any nut with an RPG can give everybody for miles around a VERY bad day.
 
  • #80


Ivan Seeking said:
Our system of government is designed such that even Presidents can be held liable for crimes. No one is above the law and politics is not a shield against legal review.

What you fail to understand is that the previous admin was a severe aberration in our system. Our legal system, which is the practical implentation of our Constitution, is designed to deal with these situations.

If anyone is convicted of a crime, it will be because, beyond any reasonable doubt, they are guilty.

no, you have to impeach the president. through congress. a political process. you can drag the president before a civil court, but not a criminal one.
 
  • #81


edward said:
Cheney formally asked the CIA?? Someone needs to inform the CIA that Cheney can no longer formally ask for anything.

This was apparently another Cheney lie. The CIA according to an Andrea Mitchell report has received no such request from Cheney.

My guess is the Cheney would call for the release of such information that he knows neither exists nor would be released if it did, because it most likely would qualify as Classified.

It looks to me like more of the same from Cheney.

The weasel in the field that stands up gets shot at. The one that stays low may escape the interest of the hunter. (Apparently Bush's strategy.) For someone that hunts, even though he hunts badly if you've the misfortune to be in his hunting party, apparently he hasn't learned much in the great outdoors.

If he wants to prance about in the open inviting fire, his pelt may become an object lesson for the future of the Republic, rather than any icon of public admiration.
 
  • #82


drankin said:
Weren't these approved methods at the time?

It's the authors of these decisions - the bogus legal foundation on which they were predicated and conducted, which they are now considering prosecuting.

Here is Obama's statements from earlier today.
Obama Open to Inquiry in Interrogation Abuses
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22intel.html?hp
 
  • #83


Proton Soup said:
no, you have to impeach the president. through congress. a political process. you can drag the president before a civil court, but not a criminal one.

When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.
 
  • #84


LowlyPion said:
When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

bull****.
 
  • #85


Proton Soup said:
bull****.

Since you seem so certain on the issue, I'd want to see a citation supporting your point of view.
 
  • #86


LowlyPion said:
When he is in office this is true.

But Bush no longer has the protection of that clause of the Constitution now that he is no longer an office holder.

But he was an office holder when the alleged "crimes" were committed.
 
  • #87


LowlyPion said:
Since you seem so certain on the issue, I'd want to see a citation supporting your point of view.

better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.
 
  • #88


drankin said:
But he was an office holder when the alleged "crimes" were committed.

And what law then is the authority that would grant any President perpetual immunity for any acts of malfeasance, or high crimes and misdemeanors, when they are in office, regardless of whether they were not impeached?
 
  • #89


Proton Soup said:
better yet, you show me a criminal indictment against any former president for crimes committed during office.

It's your assertion. I'm looking for the authority under which you think ex-Presidents enjoy perpetual immunity. I don't recall ever seeing such an authority. Surely you wouldn't rely on the fact that it may never have happened as proof of anything but that it hadn't happened.
 
  • #90


LowlyPion said:
And what law then is the authority that would grant any President perpetual immunity for any acts of malfeasance, or high crimes and misdemeanors, when they are in office, regardless of whether they were not impeached?

It's a legal battle that would take a loooong time I'm sure. It would probably have to go to the SC. Meanwhile, many of us don't believe there was a crime in the first place. If it does happen as you would like, then we could start digging up stuff on Clinton. That would be fun.
 

Similar threads

News William Ayers turned back at Canadian border
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News USA: Legal Frankenstein? Dehumanisation.
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K