BS: Obama and Torture

Subject: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 09:50 PM

I find this very disappointing. The article is fairly long, but it's worth reading the whole thing. I'm going to send him an email and request some answers...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/19/exceptionalism/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 10:03 PM

This is the email I sent...

Dear President Obama,

I voted for you, and I campaigned for you, both in the primaries and in the general election. I am very disappointed to read about your stance on the torture of Binyam Mohamed and not allowing his attorneys to have the facts of the case to use in his defense. I am especially disappointed that you would uphold President Bush's threat against the UK government to withhold intelligence that would protect civilians in that country if they provided Mohamed's lawyers with evidence of his torture at the hands of the US government.

If you have already corrected this stance, please disregard this message. If you have not, I request that you do so now. This man has a right to a proper defense. We do not allow confessions obtained by torture to be used to convict people.

We did not elect you to protect people in the previous administration who violated the law. We especially did not elect you to do this at the expense of peoples' civil liberties.

Please do not let us down, President Obama. We elected you to uphold the laws that the previous administration so flagrantly violated.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 10:05 PM

Great letter, Carol C.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Janie
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 10:09 PM

What Ebbie said.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Peace
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 10:09 PM

Good one, Carol.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Amos
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM

Carol:

Thanks for bringing the letter up, and for your letter to President Obama. I hope to hear he answers it genuinely, although I realize how unlikely that is in the general scheme of things.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 10:21 PM

I'm hoping he'll hear from other people besides me. One email on a particular subject probably won't get noticed, but multiple emails (or letters) might.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:08 PM

The article paints a grim picture, but let's put things in perspective.

From what I've heard on the subject, I don't believe Obama is supporting Bush's policy here. I think it is more likely he might have asked the UK to hold off awhile til things can be sorted out.

I mean s%$#, the guy's been in office 29 days.

Give him a chance. He's stated he doesn't support torture, and members of both houses are calling for investigations.

These things don't get solved overnight.

There are people working on Guantanamo and the Iraq prisons to get people released and find out what has happened to them.

It takes time.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:47 PM

If he hadn't done anything at all, I would be prepared to give him time to sort it out. But he has done something. He actively upheld Bush's policy on preventing Mohamed's lawyers from having access to the facts of the case, and he upheld Bush's threat against the UK if it disclosed this information.

I think Obama's a good president overall. But we're going to have to hold his feet to the fire from time to time. I think this may be one of those times.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 12:08 AM

He asked that the information not be released at this time. That does not mean it can't be reversed later.

He has people investigating and when they are finished with the investigation, we'll see what happens.

It would be STUPID for him to just start making policy changes without finding out first what the real story is, and I'm not about to start condemning him over one article written by one person whose agenda I do not know.

There are literally THOUSANDS of these cases to be reviewed, and they are reviewing them.

I don't believe the Bush administration is going to get away with what they have done. If we don't do anything, I think the war crimes tribunal at the Hague will.

It's not going to happen overnight though.

Obama has more crap on his plate than any President in the history of this country, and I hate to tell you, he has no magic wand.

Give the man a friggin chance.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Amos
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 12:48 AM

BHSC, thanks for a reasonable voice. I suspect you are on the right track on this issue.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:02 AM

I don't know why anyone would characterize what I am doing as "condemning" Obama because of this. That's a very bizarre way to characterize someone writing a letter for the purpose of making a request.

He's our president and he represents us. It's up to us to make sure he knows what we expect of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:05 AM

And by the way, this part...

"It's up to us to make sure he knows what we expect of him."


This is what he has told us he expects of us

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:19 AM

I'm not saying that you personally are condemning him, but the article you posted makes some pretty strong allegations.

One thing to remember is Bush ain't in charge here anymore, and his buddy Blair ain't in charge in the UK anymore.

I think the current administrations in both countries already know what is expected in this area, and are doing what they can be reasonably expected to do.

"Holding his feet to the fire" might be something to do if he wasn't doing anything, but he is.

I don't think we need to set him on fire just yet, that's all.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:52 AM

Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion. Including me. I think our attention to this particular matter is justified. Other people may see things differently. They are, of course, free to not write any letters to Obama. I'm glad I wrote (and sent) mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:56 AM

Remember not so long ago I pointed out that the presidential intelligence briefings might start to influence the new Pres??? And a bunch of Mudcatters ASSURED me that the pres-elect was getting Dubya's briefings? I bet he was! :~)

But--

Did you really think Dubya was getting great briefings, and might Obama be getting different info about now, whether it's "new" or "not"?!?!????

[shaking head]

See Chicago politics primer in the Burris thread.

I know we all WANT Obama to keep all his campaign promises, and to be the new messiah the place needs-- but executive orders can cut both way, you know.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM

"There are literally THOUSANDS of these cases to be reviewed, and they are reviewing them."

Thousands of "cases" at Guantanamo???

Last time I heard there were about 220 detainees, perhaps 20 or so had been told they could go home but refused, citing the probability of being arrested or killed by the ruling party at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 10:15 AM

I can't take responsibility for what Obama does. I can only take responsibility for what I do (or don't do). And if I don't do anything, when I have the ability to do something (like writing letters and posting threads), then I am a part of the problem and not the solution.

As I said, some people might want to write to Obama, and some might not. But if people don't bring these kinds of issues out in the open, nobody will have any opportunity to decide for themselves which approach they prefer.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 10:20 AM

Well done Carol....there's hope for America while you're around!

He did not re-define America's position on torture.
His spokesmen say that his administration will prevent charges being brought against CIA torturers; and Mr Obama has issued executive orders, under which the CIA still retain authority to "render" prisoners,(the secret abduction and transfer of prisoners to foreign countries which support the USA.)

"One solution for dealing with Guantanamo detainees upon its closure, as ordered by President Obama to occur within a year, would be to render them to foreign governments to be held in prisons there, or possibly transfer to other U.S. military detention centers, such as at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan, where court rulings such as the Supreme Court's restoration of habeas corpus do not apply."(NYT)

Ethics??? don't make me laugh....he's a politician isn't he?....Ake I posted this some time ago to deafening silence from the Obama "liberals"

BHSC.....I wish you would look a bit deeper......they all "condemn"
torture!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 10:44 AM

"Last time I heard there were about 220 detainees....."
Can't suggest an actual number (secret) but don't forget those who are shipped out for 'special rendition' to countries not so fussy about the methods used.
The almost certainly pass through my local airport (Shannon) on their way to such destinations, to the eternal shame of the Irish Government.
Still waiting for a positive response to the Gaza massacres - but won't hold my breath.
We live with the thought that he can't possibly be as bad as the last pres........ or can he?????
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 11:12 AM

I don't think he can be as bad as the last prez. For one thing, the last prez knew that he wasn't beholden to the average voter because we're not the ones who got him into office. He knew it was the big and powerful corporate interests that got him elected. Obama, on the other hand, knows he couldn't have gotten elected without us (millions of us sending small amounts of money). I expect that he will be mindful of that when we make our voices heard. Which is why I am making sure that mine is in the mix.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 11:15 AM

My reference to thousands of cases did not just refer to Guantnamo.

Add up all the prison facilities around the world and there are thousands of cases to be reviewed.

Akenaton, I have been looking deeper into a lot of these issues.

The statement about not charging torturers is being a little misconstrued. Obama does not want another episode like the one in Iraq where low level soldiers were hung out to dry by the Bush administration. He doesn't want the low level guy who is following orders, he wants the guys who gave the orders. The low level guys are not going to rat out their superiors if they are going to have to share a prison cell with them.

Yes, the CIA is still allowed to render prisoners to friendly countries, but under the executive order, that is not to include countries that torture.

All I have been trying to get across is GIVE THE GUY A CHANCE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BEFORE YOU SAY HE'S JUST LIKE THE LAST GUY!!!!!

Bush had 8 years of appointing and otherwise embedding his cronies into the system. It's going to take more than one month to get this, and all the other problems solved.

Writing letters is fine, but just writing to Obama is showing a lack of understanding as to how the system works. You should also include letters to your House Rep, and Senator, as well as members of the various committees who are involved with military and intelligence issues.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: wysiwyg
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 11:28 AM

All I have been trying to get across is GIVE THE GUY A CHANCE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BEFORE YOU SAY HE'S JUST LIKE THE LAST GUY!!!!!

===

DAMN I like that sentence! I agree.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 12:17 PM

I'm with Carol. This is typical executive branch stuff. Presidents -- including Obama -- talk about openness until they hear from the internal government people and the military, who are NEVER in favour of openness over secrecy. (Where's Charmian on this topic?).....

The increasing power of the executive always ALWAYS occurs when there is a war on, and one of the problems with the Cold War was that there was never a peacetime, and then there was this desperate scramble to find a new enemy, and bad luck would have it that that cunning lunatic Bin Laden came along, so now there is an eternal war on terrorism.

This inevitable encroachment was specifically discussed at great length in the Federalist papers, and it was one of the reasons why the legal system was strengthened, and Congress was created to be a check and a balance on the executive (which Congress has abrogated over the years).

I have little faith in executive branches willingly giving up power. This is especially true when your opposition constantly yells at you that you are a Democrat and so soft on terrorism, the military, etc.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:30 PM

JtS tells me that the reason US politics and the US government tends to be so moribund is because voters don't hold the people they vote for accountable. We're perfectly willing to bitch and complain about the ones we don't vote for, but we don't hold accountable the ones for whom we ourselves vote. We tend to defend the ones we vote for ourselves no matter what.

He says this is the reason Canadian politicians are more responsive to the voters in Canada. He doesn't think they're perfect, but he says they couldn't get away with a lot of the stuff that US politicians can and do get away with. Canadian voters are very demanding of the people they themselves vote for, rather than just complaining about the ones they didn't vote for.

Personally, I agree with his outlook in this regard. The only way for us to get our politicians and government to respond to what the voters want is for people to be demanding of the ones they themselves voted for, and to hold them to account.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 01:53 PM

I did say he could turn out to be another Blair all piss and promises, he`s heading that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 04:07 PM

"GIVE THE GUY A CHANCE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BEFORE YOU SAY HE'S JUST LIKE THE LAST GUY!!!!!"

Mr Obama is a product of the American political system, and as such, has neither the will or ability to change that system, be he black, white, green or purple, it matters nothing, Mr Obama has made it clear that the system which made him is in safe hands.
The Democratic Party have cleverly played the race card for personal power not to change anything of any significance.
Ard Mhacha is correct, Blair was the UK's Obama. He promised us "ethical foreign policy" and in exchange for our votes gave us a shameful war in Iraq.

Everyone knows that we require massive change in the political systems of the UK and the USA, but that change will never ever come from within the system, or be provided by a man of the system like Mr Obama.

Dr Martin Luther King was a man who made change really happen, and he did it from outside the political system, using people power to pressurise the establishment into ceding the biggest political change in my lifetime.

Don't be taken in, Mr Obama will tinker here and there....put his finger in the dyke, but as a product of the Chicago Democrats, he will turn out to be no Che Guavara. Mr Obama's hardest challenge in office is likely to be.... attempting to prise the claws of Hillary the Hawk from his throat!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 05:43 PM

"I have little faith in executive branches willingly giving up power."

Yeah. Income tax was a temporary measure brought in during WWI. GST was supposed to be somewhat temporary. Yeah. Right.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 06:15 PM

The article had a quote in it about "Obama being painted into a corner".

I'd like to take this just a bit further.

Let's say that if Obama agrees and gives in to this, then what other secrets may be in there other than "if the govt's of USA and UK torture prisoners".

As was said above, Obama was privy to reports from the Bush admin as well as reports from his own people after he was sworn in.

Don't ya think that there might be something in those reports that neither gov't wants out? Such as info that if terrorists knew we had would jeopardize lives? Strategic military plans, methods of warfare, locations of high profile targets, sources of information?

Don't assume that just because he wants some war related info to be kept secret that it's automatically something bad or devious.

There's probably a lot more to this story than what Salon.com is trying to make it look like.

Welcome to the liberal media.

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 07:36 PM

Obama Thanks Cheney For Good Advice

It also turns out that Obama and Cheney are Eighth Cousins (but isn't everybody?)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 08:01 PM

The ride's a little different when you're in the driver's seat.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 08:59 PM

Considering the track record they have of people they've tortured who were not in any way dangerous to anyone, I think it's pretty safe to suggest that the only reason they were torturing people in the first place (and it has been firmly established that information obtained by torture is famously not reliable), is so they could have warm bodies in their prisons whom they could point to and use to justify an endless war, trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money going to their cronies, and the eroding of our freedoms and civil liberties.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:19 PM

Bruce-
The graduated income tax was instituted as a permanent arrangement by Teddy Roosevelt--a good bit before WWI.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:21 PM

I think it is actually a larger subject that has been inadequately explored.

Is it torture to threaten a subject with the torture / rape/ murder of his / her relatives if he / she does not cooperate?

Is it effective torture to perform the above?

This has been performed on Soviet citizens by their government, On Persian citizens by their government, and has been used in many other circumstances. And of course, it is a staple of organized crime. I'm not aware of its use by the US, Canada, or UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:28 PM

The guy in the article I posted the link to in the opening post had his genitals sliced by our people when they were torturing him. I don't think our methods are as subtle as only "threatening" to torture.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:55 PM

The other thing that I think has to be vigorously stressed is that this person was not tortured for information. He was tortured for a confession. There is no valid reason for torturing someone for a confession unless what is sought is the conviction of someone for whom there is no proof, or even sufficient evidence of having committed a crime (or whatever they're being accused of).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 11:16 PM

"Bruce-
The graduated income tax was instituted as a permanent arrangement by Teddy Roosevelt--a good bit before WWI."

Sorry. Should hasve been clear. I'm a Canuck and was talking about Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Peace
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:25 AM

"Welcome to the liberal media."

Yeah. And it's about time. Under Bush, it would never have made the news at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:19 AM

By the way, it should also be noted that the information Mohamed's lawyers have requested for his case has absolutely nothing whatever to do with strategic military plans, methods of warfare, locations of high profile targets, sources of information, or any other information that would be sensitive from a national security standpoint. It has only to do with evidence that Mohamed was tortured and the nature of the torture. If the US Government feels a need to keep that information a secret, it's because they have something to hide that can get them into big trouble if it is revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:08 AM

The following will lead you to what the UK courts have had to say on the matter .

http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/620

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:20 AM

I know that the Guardian is anathema to some of the US knee-jerk right wing, but this Guardian article quotes some of the parts of the UK court judgments

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-bay-torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Slag
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:10 AM

CarolC, you must have some amazing facts, proof of the torture of those innocent folks being illegally detained. No one else I know of claims to have the facts that you do. You really need to bring them forth and establish once and for all the truth of this situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:35 AM

That's the whole point!!!

The UK government has the proof, and the Bush and now Obama administrations won't allow them to provide it to Mohamed's lawyers!

Pay attention please!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:26 AM

"In order to raise revenue to fund the Civil War, the income tax was introduced in the United States with the Revenue Act of 1861. It was a flat rate tax of 3% on annual income above $800.

The following year, this was replaced with a graduated tax of 3-5% on income above $600 in the Revenue Act of 1862, which specified a termination of income taxation in 1866.

The Socialist Labor Party advocated for a graduated income tax in 1887.

The Populist Party 'demanded a graduated income tax' in their 1892 platform.

The Democratic Party, led by William Jennings Bryan, advocated the income tax law passed in 1894, and proposed an income tax in their 1908 platform.

Federal income tax was proposed by {president} William H. Taft in 1909 as a way to lower tariffs.

On June 16, 1909, President Taft proposed a constitutional amendment in an address to Congress to allow federal income taxes on individuals and an excise tax 'upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock.'

On July 12, 1909, the resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by the Sixty-first Congress and submitted to the state legislatures. Support for the income tax was strongest in the western states and opposition was strongest in the northeastern states. The governor of New York, Charles Evans Hughes, who a few years later became a Supreme Court justice, opposed the income tax amendment because he believed 'from whatever source derived' implied that passage would confer the federal government with the power to tax state and municipal bonds and thus excessively centralize government power.

The presidential election of 1912 was contested between three advocates of an income tax. On February 25, 1913, the Secretary of State Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states, and thus had become part of the Constitution. An income tax, the Revenue Act of 1913, was shortly passed by the Congress."

{The federal income tax was made official by the Revenue Act of 1913 as signed by Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Theodore Roosevelt may have supported the federal income tax but had little to do with proposing it or imposing it.}

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 11:40 AM

Thank you RB for posting those two articles.

From those two, it appears that statements made by a lawyer in an attempt to help his client, have been misconstrued as being fact.

I know what happened to this man, and all the other victims of torture, is horrendous and unconscionable, but I have yet to see any real evidence that President Obama has renewed GWB's threat to withhold intelligence from the UK, or any other allies.

As with any criminal prosecution, an investigation must be conducted, followed by the building of a case, then a trial.

All this doesn't happen in 1 month.

These investigations will take quite some time.

It may be decades before most of it comes to light. Hell, we are still finding out more about Nazi crimes that occurred in the 30's and 40's. The people who perpetrate these things don't generally leave the evidence sitting out on a table.

Give them some time to do something before saying they aren't doing anything.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:02 PM

According to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition (House of Commons), in the first UK link above, what the lawyer said is fact...

"British court asks that President Obama
reconsider his predecessor's repeated "threats"
levelled against the judges who considered allowing
the public to learn the details of American torture of Binyam Mohamed

In an extraordinary ruling, two British judges sitting on the case of Binyam Mohamed have revealed how the US government has "threatened" the British government with reprisals should the British reveal evidence that American agents were involved in his rendition and torture. The judges end the decision with a plea to President Obama to reconsider President Bush's remarkable policy of retribution against anyone who might reveal American crimes:

If the information in the redacted paragraphs which we consider so important to the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability is to be put into the public domain, it must now be for the United States Government to consider changing its position or itself putting that information into the public domain.

Mohamed v. Secretary of State, at ¶107.

No fewer than eight times, the judges refer to the American "threat" made against their closest ally, the British. Mohamed v. Secretary of State, at ¶¶62, 70, 73, 76, 76, 76, 77, 107). The British intelligence services have 42 documents that apparently demonstrate abuse of Binyam Mohamed a British resident."


However, it might all be moot in the not to distant future, since they're saying that Mohamed is very close to death at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:15 PM

It may be a fact that Bush made a statement to that effect, but you still haven't given any evidence, other than the initial article you posted, that Obama holds the same position.

You titled the thread, "Obama and Torture", but haven't given any evidence that his position is any different than what he has himself stated.

If his position was as stated in the initial article, it would be all over the press, not just one magazine.

Mohamed's plight is deplorable, I know, but blaming Obama for it, without any real evidence, is counterproductive.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 12:59 PM

This thread is about Obama and about Torture. Hence the title.

The UK judges are saying that, so far, Obama has not yet withdrawn the threat against them should they release the information about Mohamed's torture. So I started this thread so people could write to Obama and put pressure on him to withdraw the threat against the UK. And I hope people will do that. There is nothing counterproductive about my having started this thread. Who knows? It might even help to save someone's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:33 PM

"since they're saying that Mohamed is very close to death at this point"

Binyam Mohamed is in poor health do to a hunger strike, not from anything the US has done to him.

Cesar Chavez, Bobby Sands and Dick Gregory also went on hunger strikes. Eventually, the person gets a type of addiction to his starved condition, as well as to the attention it brings.

Dick Gregory was comedian and well-liked by most Americans, but he almost died. I heard an interview where he said that continuing the self-induced starvation was not rational.

Binyam Mohamed was judged OK to travel to Britain as of last Tuesday. Some people say he will leave today, 23FEB2009.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 01:50 PM

If a person has been brutally tortured, including having his genitals sliced numerous times, and he is being held without charge indefinitely without access to any due process, and without any expectation that he will ever be set free and returned to his family, if that person goes on a hunger strike and dies, it sure as hell is because what his captors have done to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:18 PM

Binyam Mohamed

"Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs? In fact, there is no doubt that Mohamed traveled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to receive training in an al Qaeda camp. Mohamed admitted this to the personal representative assigned to handle his case at Guantánamo. Mohamed did not testify at his hearing at Guantánamo, but his personal representative submitted a memo on his behalf. The memo indicates that Mohamed "admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence." That is a reference to the unclassified summary-of-evidence memo that was prepared by the US government for Mohamed's case.

The items Mohamed admitted include the following:
         
          1. The detainee is an Ethiopian who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.

          2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Farouq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.

          3. At the al Farouq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.

          4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.

At a minimum, therefore, we know that Mohamed has admitted being an al Qaeda-trained operative.

Mohamed claims that he was not going to use his skills against America. Mohamed told his personal representative that "he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal." In 2005, Mohamed's lawyer echoed this explanation in an interview with CNN. "He wanted to see the Taliban with his own eyes," Mohamed's lawyer claimed. "I am not saying he never went to any Islamic camp," the lawyer conceded, but he "didn't go to any camp to blow up Americans."

There are obvious problems with this quasi-denial.

The al Farouq training camp was responsible for training numerous al Qaeda operatives, including some of the September 11 hijackers. Al Qaeda used the al Farouq camp to identify especially promising recruits who could take on sensitive missions. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, this is what happened with members of al Qaeda's infamous Hamburg cell. Some of the future 9/11 suicide pilots also first expressed an interest in fighting in Chechnya, but ended up being assigned a mission inside the United States."

{part of article only}

{blaming anything on Obama concerning this case is absurd, but George W. Bush has very little to do with it either}

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:41 PM

If they have evidence against him, they can charge him with something and try him. Holding him indefinitely without charge and with no recourse to any kind of due process is criminal. And of course, so is torturing him. For that reason, if he dies because of a hunger strike, they are responsible.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 03:45 PM

It should be pointed out, however, that he admitted to those things after being tortured numerous times over a very lengthy period. So there's really no way of knowing if those things he admitted to are true or not. Torturing people to obtain confessions tends to produce false confessions.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 04:19 PM

"Obama and Torture"


                That's what it is, torture. Obama is torturing the stock market.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 06:55 PM

I will listen to what English judges say, before I listen to BHSC. Why don't you go to the source?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:31 PM

He's back in the UK now. Well done, President Obama!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5792921.ece

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:32 PM

(Time for me to send another email to the president to say thanks.)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 04:58 AM

Anyone naive enough to pin their faith in British justice should remember that Britain was brought before the European Court on two occasions in the 1970s and was found guilty of,"Cruel and Dergrading treatment" on Irish prisoners. For further information read " The Guinea Pigs" by John McGuffin free on the web.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 05:37 AM

An extract from a review of McGuffins book by Eamon McCann.

BRIAN Faulkner made a mistake when he interned John McGuffin in August 1971. McGuffin, a Belfast Protestant who describes himself as an anarchist, was so outraged that since his release he has spent his spare time collecting and publishing the facts about internment His first book, a history of imprisonment without trial since the inception of the Northern Ireland state, was published in 1973. This, his second, is a detailed account of what happened to fourteen of the 342 men arrested in the August '71 swoop. It is hair-raising stuff .

Some of the internees were tortured. No-one denies that any longer and a few of them have been awarded substantial sums in compensation. But it has been widely assumed – and little has been published in Britain to contradict the assumption – that the torture consisted mainly of physical assault: unjustified perhaps, outrageous even, but hardly sinister. And, anyway, it was stopped after a wave of liberal indignation.

The facts themselves are horrific enough. The men were kicked and beaten, thrown into landrovers, lorries and helicopters and tossed out again. Taken to 'interrogation centres', separated from one another, stripped naked, some urinated on. Then black bags were put over their heads and they were made to lean spread-eagled against a wall, all their joints kept rigid and all their weight on flexed fingertips while white noise played into their ears. When they collapsed they were kicked and thrown up against the wall again. The 'wall treatment' lasted up to 43 hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 07:34 AM

And are you arguing that that is worse than Guantanamo?

Equally, are you arguing that the British courts have not gradually been putting right their decisions that were wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 07:43 AM

The crucial question in all of this is whether torture is an appropriate strategy for a democracy that prides itself on its committment to law. The answer has to be no -- NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES.

This is the tough part. It is easy to argue that torture is necessary to ferret out useful information or to prevent some tragedy. A counter-argument of course is that torture is generally known not to work. But some could argue that even if there is a chance of it working, it should be used.

The test of a strong democracy is in its willingness to say that in spite of the possibility of getting useful information, it is not worth it in terms of the erosion of the moral ground upon which we stand. That the moral ground is the most valuable thing we have. Even if it results in innocent deaths. This is the real test. From time to time during the IRA struggle, it was clear that the moral ground was to be able to say that a society is strong enough to face up to terrorists, to allow itself to be bombed rather than give that up. But the pressure against that is incredibly strong, and it requires every ounce of restraint and moral courage -- courage on an ordinary daily basis, not a military basis -- not to give in to it. Very, very few societies and people can manage it. The British and the French and now the Americans have succumbed to it.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: bald headed step child
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:13 AM

Richard, I went to the articles you linked, and commented on them.
Nothing I saw in them showed any FACTUAL evidence that Obama had renewed Bush's threat, only a statement from a lawyer to that effect.

The court said it was up to the US to publish US information.

The only thing I have been saying is to give them a chance to do something before comparing Obama to the idiot before him.

Torture is a bad thing, that has eroded our standing in the world, and has emboldened those who would do us harm. It has been used to radicalise even more people.

As for the whole "war on terror", I think the whole thing is a sick joke.
9/11 was not an act of war, it was a criminal act.

Using the military to prosecute a criminal organisation is ill advised at best. The military is being used for something it was not designed to do. That is why we end up with problems like this.

Criminal acts should only be prosecuted through the courts, as that is what they are designed to do.

Obama has a ton of shit on his plate, in case you haven't noticed.
Calm, thoughtful action is what is required to sort it all out, and I think he is doing a good job at that.

If you don't think my appeals for calmness and rationality are a good thing, I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you.

Nervous irrationality was the trademark of the previous administration.

I see that since my previous post, Mohamed has been sent to the UK.

WOW, given a little time, some progress has been made, imagine that.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:17 AM

Peter Bridge come back to this Thread after you read John McGuffin`s two books. Lord Denning when asked about the Birmingham 6 stated that if they had been hanged it would have been all over and forgotten, as Paddy Hill one of the B`HAM 6 said, "British justice it stinks" he should know having spent 16 years experiencing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 12:52 PM

Yes, progress has been made. And its entirely possible that that progress was made because of people pressuring Obama to correct this situation, even in spite of those who tried to silence them (even right here in this thread).

People who try to silence voices raised in protest of human rights abuses are guilty of aiding and abetting those abuses.

On the subject of Mohamed's treatment in the UK... he is not now being held captive anywhere. That certainly has to be an improvement over being held indefinitely in Guantanamo.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Barry Finn
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:23 PM

Obama has already made the move by saying that all prisoners will be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which doesn't allow for tourture & I believe he's already made a stance on "reditions", extreme & otherwise. This was a statement made & reported on by NPR news a week or 2 ago.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ard mhacha
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 01:33 PM

In relation to the British Armys treatment of the Irish internees is the very important information gained from these torture methods and passed on to other countries, the following extract from John McGuffin`s book reveals a lot,

"Army training into 'psyops' (psychological operations), torture and sensory deprivation has, of course, continued, long after the British Government gave an 'assurance' that such methods would never be used again. From the British point of view one advantage of the Guinea pigs experiment has been that the British are now regarded as experts at this sort of thing and are regularly invited to give demonstrations and hold seminars, notably at Fort Bragg, Carolina, and Fort Huachuca, Arizona in the States and at Bad Tolz in West Germany."

Do not be fooled that this is no longer taking place, while so-called Democratic governments fail to be transparent about these methods it will continue.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Eddie
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 03:11 AM

I see in today's News of the World that Obama's brother has been refused entry into the UK. Samson Obama, who lives in Kenya was refused entry because of his involvement in a sex attack on a young girl from Berkshire. Full story in today's paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:56 AM

Half brother, several months ago, allegations made, not charged.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 11:09 AM

Frankly, I'm surprised Binyam Mohamed, didn't get a pardon, bailout money, and a post on his cabinet!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 12:04 PM

Gore Vidal mentioned on Bill Maher's program the other night that the thing that shocked him the most was the complete trashing of the Constitution by Bush gang and that no one
of authority or public approbation had the temerity to speak out against the denial of civil rights. Not one person on the media said anything except for perhaps Rachel and Keith.

The Constitution of the United States is becoming an endangered species.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 02:40 PM

AMEN STRINGSINGER!!! Good for you, to point that out!!! Not only that, but, as I pointed out during the 'campaign', Obama NEVER made mention of repealing the unconstitutional Executive Orders, that Bush put into place. Instead, he has only built on them!! Until he does, to me, (and everyone, who doesn't know it, yet), They are NOT OPPOSITES, but rather a continuation of the Same agenda!~!!! This is obvious, in policies, though Obama has a different 'style'....ONE IN THE SAME!!!!! The rest, is just illusion!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Zach
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 05:43 PM

Wowwwwwwww ! Samson Obama refused entry into theUnited Kingdom for attacking a British girl, why has this story not hit the news over here ?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 06:34 PM

More to the point, why was he refused entry into the UK if there was insufficient evidence to charge him with any crime in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 06:39 PM

"Barack Obama's half-brother was refused entry to the UK after providing false documentation in a visa application, it was reported last night.

Immigration officers noticed that one of the documents supplied by Samson Obama with an application for a visitor's visa in February was false, leading them to make further inquiries and connect him with a police investigation into an alleged sex attack."

From todays Observer

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:03 PM

I saw that, Emma - but the question remains: were it not for the "alleged sex attack", would the false document itself been sufficient to deny him admission?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:06 PM

The BBC reported that -
"A Home Office spokesman said Samson Obama was denied a visa after immigration officers noticed one of his documents was false."

" That led them to further inquiries."

I guess that would suggest that the false documents were the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:21 PM

Art....'false docmuents'.......does that not upset you????
Would YOU travel abroad with a fake passport?????

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:23 PM

Or any OTHER false docs????? Even if it wasn't the actuall passport???? Come on Art...fake is fake

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:39 PM

I guess that it would depend on what the document was and...if it didn't exist at all...would he have been admitted? Nothing at all says that he was traveling on false documents. My point is much more that the articles (and I've seen several) all say that the reason the visa (for a day trip into town, while he was on the way to Obama's inauguration) was denied because of the "sex attack" accusations, and the reason that came up was because the fake document (whatever it was) led them to check on him. My question is, is an unsubstantiated accusation sufficient to deny a visa? He apparently had no trouble getting into the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Emma B
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:46 PM

Art
"Samson Obama — one of the US President's 11 half-brothers and sisters — is alleged to have been living illegally in Britain when he was arrested in Berkshire last November

He was questioned by Thames Valley Police for several hours, during which his fingerprints and a DNA sample were taken.

He is alleged to have told detectives that he was Henry Aloo, a genuine asylum-seeker, but gave the address of his own mother, Kezia.

Mr Obama denied any sexual assault, but is reported to have accepted an official caution for a public order offence.

A caution is an admission of a criminal offence.

Police were reported to have also discovered that Mr Obama had been living illegally in Britain for seven years."

From the same report in the Times on line today

President Obama's stepbrother-in-law, Ian Manners said
"It seems he was drunk but I don't really know what the truth is,"
"Abo is not married but is in a relationship with a woman. He is a bit of a playboy but would not get involved with 13-year-old girls. It is unthinkable."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Apr 09 - 08:08 PM

Thank you, Emma - that is very different from the articles I read yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 02:02 AM

Interesting. When this thread started, the torture bit was a big no no, for a terrorist, who may have had connection to 911, where over 3000 citizens from various countries were murdered, in the Twin Towers. But today, we all applaud the fine marksmanship of the SEALS, for their wonderful head shots. No value judgment here...just interesting.....

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 04:45 PM

"A caution is an admission of a criminal offence."

"Cautions" in the British system involve a kind of plea bargain, in which someone is offered by the police the alternative of being charged with a view to prosecution, or of making a formal admission of guilt and being given a caution, with no court proceedings. Typically this happens where the offence involved is relatively trivial, or where there is a good chance that the prosecution would not stand up in court, or that the Crown Prosecution Authority might decide not to go ahead with a prosecution.

As with all plea bargains, there is no particular reason to believe that an admission of guilt is genuine, since the accused person has been offered a very powerful inducement to make such an admission.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 09:55 PM

"Obama and Torture"


                Obama is torture!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 09 - 10:15 PM

"No value judgment here...just interesting..... "

Bullshit!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 09 - 12:15 AM

Well, i don't know who that was...but, really, I was not making a value judgment at all...just thought it was interesting

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: ichMael
Date: 17 May 10 - 10:57 PM

Just typed in "torture" and came up with this thread.

Anyway, a website on which I was arguing against torture has shut down, and I'm sorting through the webpages I did in support of my arguments there. I think I'll shift the couple below to the "Mudcat Pages." Did them about the time Obama was taking over--when some people on this thread were saying Obama should be given a chance. He stopped all that stuff, right?:

Obama to end "Enemy Combatant" Designation

Will Bush Library add Reenactments?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and Torture
From: pdq
Date: 18 May 10 - 11:45 AM

...from one of ichMael's links:

       "Readers may recall Abu Ghraib, the controversial prison run by the U.S. in Afghanistan. It was reported that American troops tortured prisoners there, but President Bush denied the allegations. President Obama has addressed the controversy by changing the topic."

Anybody who thinks that statement is true is a complete idiot.