BS: Obama and torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:00 PM

Mc Cain sings:


What we all
need now
is T L C
Not some torture files
but to all
be glad again

You know it hurts
to be tortured
so stop all these torture investigations
stop all these nations
who want to sue
want to do
us harm...

What we all
need now
is T L C
Not some torture files
but to all
be glad again

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:56 PM

And that idiot was nearly President.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:46 PM

Sen. John McCain: re torture investigations

"Let bygones be bygones, there is no need to even old political scores. Lets put this behind us and fight the wars we are in right now."

********************

You know what if he is right? What if what the country needs now is a little TLC. Forgiveness and amnesty for unknown people for unknown crimes might be the best policy. Since we don't torture, all those people between 14 and 86 years old that were given special treatment and advanced inquisitiveness and interrogation technique training have no reason to hold a grudge.

Afterall, looking into these matters would only be distasteful.
Sure we spent $56 million dollars on the whitewater and Starr Reports but be honest...they were fun. All those salient facts and titillating stimulous packages of cigars were enetertaining. Whitewater investigations aka (operation POTUS sperm) kept us all in stitches.

Even a dollars worth of investigating torture would simply be a downer and a real buzz kill. (start to break into song) These kind of investigations lead to regurgitations. So don't worry, be happy. Be happy.

Don't investigate like White water and Water Gate's illegal missions.
Let it go like the Warren report and the 9-11 Commissions.
don't worry, be happy

as the Madgascar Penguin Skipper says "You didn't see a thiing"

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:45 PM

Sorry, no.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: pdq
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:53 PM

in case artbrooks needs more testimony concerning his mistaken beliefs...

Air Attack on Dresden

(13-15 February 1945)

Allied strategic bombing raid against the German city of Dresden. This operation, conducted 13-15 February 1945, has become the most commonly evoked image to illustrate the excesses and horror of conventional bombing of cities. The firestorm caused by Royal Air Force (RAF) Bomber Command on the night of 13 February rivaled that of the raid on Hamburg of 27 July 1943. The immediate controversy about the raid contributed to the end of Allied strategic bombing. Cold War rhetoric and sensationalist presentations in history books and movies have clouded the facts ever since.

At the Yalta Conference on 4 February 1945, the Soviets asked for Allied air attacks on communication centers to prevent the shifting of German troops to the Eastern Front. They specifically mentioned Berlin and Leipzig, but Allied planners also identified Dresden and Chemnitz as appropriate objectives to meet Soviet needs. On 8 February, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) instructed RAF Bomber Command and the U.S. Strategic Air Forces to prepare an attack on Dresden because of its importance in relation to movements of military forces to the Eastern Front. Contrary to later reports, Dresden did contain many important industrial and transportation targets, and it was defended, although many of its guns had been sent east to fight the Soviets. The allocation of effort was also shaped by the prodding of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, although he later tried to distance himself from the operation and the atmosphere engendered by the pursuit of Operation THUNDERCLAP. The latter was a British plan to break German morale with a massive Allied assault on the German capital, Berlin, and refugee centers. The attack on Berlin was conducted on 3 February over the protests of U.S. Eighth Air Force Commander James Doolittle. Other Americans in the U.S. Strategic Air Forces headquarters and in Washington were also uneasy over concentrating on cities such as Dresden, but that did not stop the operation.

The operation opened on the night of 13 February with two separate British raids. The first blow was delivered by 244 Lancasters dropping more than 800 tons of bombs. This attack was moderately successful. The inhabitants of the city were surprised with a second attack three hours later, this time by 529 Lancasters delivering a further 1,800 tons of bombs. The concentrated accuracy of the bombing against so many wooden structures and during ideal weather conditions produced a terrible conflagration. The smoke and flames made aiming very difficult the next day for the more than 300 American B-17s attempting to drop another 700 tons of bombs on the city's marshaling yards. Obscuration of the target area was even worse for a similar attack on 15 February.

When news of the destruction of Dresden reached Britain, there was considerable public outcry over the destruction of such a beautiful city when the war seemed to be virtually won. American air leaders were worried by similar reactions in the United States, especially after careless remarks by a SHAEF briefing officer inspired such nationwide newspaper headlines as "Terror Bombing Gets Allied Approval as Step to Speed Victory." Secretary of War Henry Stimson ordered an investigation of the "unnecessary" destruction but was satisfied by the resulting report explaining the background of the operation. Public reaction in the United States was muted. The controversy contributed to the Allied decision to suspend strategic bombing in April.

The casualty figures reported by German fire and police services ranged between 25,000 and 35,000 dead. However, thousands more were missing, and there were many unidentified refugees in the city. It is probable that the death total approached the 45,000 killed in the bombing of Hamburg in July-August 1943. Some careless historians, encouraged by Soviet and East German propaganda, promulgated figures as high as 250,000. Although David Irving later recanted his claim of 135,000 dead, one can still find that number cited in many history books.

Public impressions of the excesses of Dresden were reinforced by Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse Five and the movie it inspired. More than 50 years later, when critics of U.S. air operations against Iraq or Yugoslavia needed a metaphor to condemn conventional bombing attacks on cities, almost invariably they cited Dresden in 1945.

Conrad C. Crane

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:34 PM

Most singular, my dear Little Hawk, and very perplexing. But I think Obama is on the right track on a number of fronts in correcting some of the major problems. I think it would be a mistake for him to get bogged down in trying to press charges against members of the previous administration, and most of them would be dead and gone before anyone reached any kind of conclusion, if they ever did.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:44 PM

Indubitably. (as Holmes might have said to Watson)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 03:29 PM

More evidence, if needed, that the release of this information is not exactly going to reveal any secrets to our enemies.

I agree with the argument about a certain amount of hypocrisy in government up to a point. But there are issues and repercussions. Two completely different examples (for those who are weary of talking about torture, how torturous a discussion......): prostitution and drugs. The main claim for many years has been that prostitution shouldn't be legalised for the "certain amount of hypocrisy" argument: governments shouldn't agree to the prostitution of people. But the levels of prostitution are so high, it now seems to me to be useless, and troublesome. Far better for it to be legalized (as it is in Canada, shock, horror). The same is true for drugs. The levels of drug use are now so high, and the costs so great, that it would be much better for them to be legalized.   It is the management of these pervasive social facts that is complicated by a lack of legalization.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:13 PM

New Evidence of Torture Prison in Poland

By John Goetz and Britta Sandberg

The current debate in the US on the "special interrogation methods" sanctioned by the Bush administration could soon reach Europe. It has long been clear that the CIA used the Szymany military airbase in Poland for extraordinary renditions. Now there is evidence of a secret prison nearby.

Only a smattering of clouds dotted the sky over Szymany on March 7, 2003, and visibility was good. A light breeze blew from the southeast as a plane approached the small military airfield in northeastern Poland, and the temperature outside was 2 degrees Celsius (36 degrees Fahrenheit). At around 4:00 p.m., the Gulfstream N379P -- known among investigators as the "torture taxi" -- touched down on the landing strip.

On board was the most important prisoner the US had been able to produce in the war on terror: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, also known as "the brains" behind al-Qaida. This was the man who had presented Osama bin Laden with plans to attack the US with commercial jets. He personally selected the pilots and supervised preparations for the attacks. Eighteen months later, on March 1, 2003, Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by US Special Forces and brought to Afghanistan two days later. Now the CIA was flying him to a remote area in Poland's Masuria region. The prisoner slept during the flight from Kabul to Szymany, for the first time in days, as he later recounted:

FROM THE MAGAZINE
Find out how you can reprint this DER SPIEGEL article in your publication.
"My eyes were covered with a cloth tied around my head. A cloth bag was then pulled over my head. … I fell asleep. ... I therefore don't know how long the journey lasted."

Jerry M., age 56 at the time, probably sat at the controls of the plane chartered by the CIA. The trained airplane and helicopter pilot had been hired by Aero Contractors, a company that transferred prisoners around the world for US intelligence agencies. According to documents from the European aviation safety agency Eurocontrol, Jerry M. had taken off from Kabul at 8:51 a.m. that morning. Only hours after landing in Poland, at 7:16 p.m., he took off again, headed for Washington.

A large number of Polish and American intelligence operatives have since gone on record that the CIA maintained a prison in northeastern Poland. Independent of these sources, Polish government officials from the Justice and Defense Ministry have also reported that the Americans had a secret base near Szymany airport. And so began on March 7, 2003 one of the darkest chapters of recent American -- and European -- history. ... (Der Spiegel)

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 01:10 PM

BB - "Can coercive interrogation ever be justified?"

Well, sure it can...under certain desperate circumstances, and we all know that (if we are prepared to be honest about it). Every police force in the world has at one time or another used "coercive interrogation" on a suspect (whether or not they were technically allowed to do so by the letter of the official rules they serve under)

My argument all along, however, has been this, BB: Such forms of coercive interrogation, meaning torture, should NEVER be sanctioned and legitimized by making them an officially legal policy of a government or a police force. The Bush administration did sanction them and did make it an official policy, and that was what scared me about the Bush administration.

I already know perfectly well that there have been and will continue to be some instances of coercive interrogation under virtually all governments at certain times...but it should never be sanctioned and made a legal (and therefore presumably justifiable) policy. If it is, you have right there the establishment of a fascist state, in my opinion. You have opened the door to massive abuses by the state, because the state has made the policy legal and there is therefore no redress against it, and no protection for prisoners at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:29 PM

It's true that the US government has committed many crimes against humanity in the past. However, we can't use that as an excuse to continue committing crimes against humanity. And the only thing that will stop us from continuing to do that is for us to start holding responsible the people in our government who commit those crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 12:14 PM

Arguments which are ad hominem against a leading personage in political affairs,such as Bush, have a certain amount of merit in that a moronic player is likely to play a moronic game; it is better by far, though, to argue against his moronic deeds and hismoronic logic in making moronic decisions, if you can find what it was.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: pdq
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:34 AM

I don't like quoting Wikipedia as a rule, but Wiki sez:


"The Bombing of Dresden by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Army Air Force (USAAF) between 13 February and 15 February 1945, twelve weeks before the surrender of the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) of Nazi Germany, remains one of the most controversial Allied actions of the Second World War. The raids saw 1,300 heavy bombers drop over 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices in four raids, destroying 13 square miles (34 km2) of the city, the baroque capital of the German state of Saxony, and causing a firestorm that consumed the city centre. Estimates of civilian casualties vary greatly, but recent publications place the figure between 24,000 and 40,000."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 11:09 AM

You need to brush up on your rhetoric. It is not an ad hominem if you cast doubt on someone's argument in defence of their previous boss, and not alone their previous boss, but as someone who wrote words that defended their actions at the time and is doing the same now.   He is being questioned based on his position, and not his person.   This seems to be absolutely fair.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 10:17 AM

Greg F.

I will remember, the next time someone quotes any member of the Obama administration, that they are wrong by definition.





Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):
attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
Another example is this syllogism, which alludes to Alan Turing's homosexuality:

Turing thinks machines think.
Turing lies with men.
Therefore, machines don't think.
(Note the equivocation in the use of the word "lies".)

A common form is an attack on sincerity. For example, "How can you argue for vegetarianism when you wear leather shoes?" The two wrongs make a right fallacy is related.

A variation (related to Argument By Generalization) is to attack a whole class of people. For example, "Evolutionary biology is a sinister tool of the materialistic, atheistic religion of Secular Humanism." Similarly, one notorious net.kook waved away a whole category of evidence by announcing "All the scientists were drunk."

Another variation is attack by innuendo: "Why don't scientists tell us what they really know; are they afraid of public panic?"

There may be a pretense that the attack isn't happening: "In order to maintain a civil debate, I will not mention my opponent's drinking problem." Or "I don't care if other people say you're [opinionated/boring/overbearing]."

Attacks don't have to be strong or direct. You can merely show disrespect, or cut down his stature by saying that he seems to be sweating a lot, or that he has forgotten what he said last week. Some examples: "I used to think that way when I was your age." "You're new here, aren't you?" "You weren't breast fed as a child, were you?" "What drives you to make such a statement?" "If you'd just listen.." "You seem very emotional." (This last works well if you have been hogging the microphone, so that they have had to yell to be heard.)

Sometimes the attack is on the other person's intelligence. For example, "If you weren't so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view." Or, "Even you should understand my next point."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:30 AM

It is now reasonably clear that the most important reason for continued torturing was so that the Bush administration could find evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Iraq. It had little to do with what Gerson is talking about -- "clear and serious" evidence of terrorism. He also says "captured murderers". How does he know they are murderers? By what evidence: forced confessions?

There is also no evidence brought forward so far that there was any agonizing at the higher echelons at all: everyone seems to have signed on quite blithely.   Where is the deliberative agony? The only agony seems to be among the military lawyers and others who protested at the risk of their careers.

This piece does not even rise to the level of an argument.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:13 AM

An article like that, which is otherwise full of interesting points, goes immediately into my mental trashcan when it contains even one significant factual error. In this case, it says historically, did America ever give such exhaustive consideration to the consequences of its actions in safeguarding the homeland? To the rights of children incinerated during the firebombing of Dresden? The Dresden firebombing was the result of a bombing raid by the Royal Air Force.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 09:01 AM

Ah, yes- Mike Gerson, George Dumbya's speech writer....

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 09 - 08:00 AM

Lines on a Slippery Slope

By Michael Gerson
Monday, April 27, 2009

By releasing the Justice Department memos on coercive interrogations, the Obama administration has produced an unintended effect: Revealing the context and care of these decisions has made them more understandable, not less.

I had come to view harsh interrogations as a clear mistake. The war on terror is as much an ideological conflict as a military one, and the combination of Abu Ghraib and revelations about waterboarding had the practical effect of a battle lost. I worried also that these techniques might lead to a dehumanized view of the enemy -- always a risk in a time of war -- thus greasing a slippery slope toward abuse.

But the Justice Department memos disclose a different sort of deliberation -- a government struggling with similar worries even after immense provocation; a government convinced that new attacks were imminent but still weighing the rights of captured murderers, drawing boundaries to prevent permanent injury during questioning, well aware of the laws regarding torture and determined not to violate them.

Historically, did America ever give such exhaustive consideration to the consequences of its actions in safeguarding the homeland? To the rights of children incinerated during the firebombing of Dresden? To the long-term mental and physical health of the elderly of Hiroshima? Even the most questionable techniques employed in the war on terror bear no comparison to methods common in past American wars.

The Justice Department memos raise a question: Can coercive interrogation ever be justified? Few Americans would object to the slapping of a terrorist during questioning, for example, if this yielded important intelligence. The coercion would be minimal; the goal of saving lives, overriding. Few Americans, on the other hand, would support pressuring a terrorist by torturing his child. Such a heinous act could not be justified in pursuit of an inherently uncertain outcome -- securing information that may or may not prevent greater loss of life.

So the use of coercion in interrogations lies on a continuum of ethics and risk. Lines must somehow be drawn on the slippery slope -- the difficult task that Justice Department lawyers were given. On which side of the line should waterboarding lie? It is the hardest case. The practice remains deeply troubling to me, and it was discontinued by the CIA in 2003 after being used on three terrorists. But some members of Congress, it is now apparent, knew of the technique and funded it. The decision was not easy or obvious for them. It was just as difficult for intelligence and Justice Department officials in the months of uncertainty following Sept. 11.

I respect many of those who say "never" in regard to coercive interrogation -- just as I respect pacifists who believe that the use of violence and coercion by government is always wrong. This can be a position of admirable moral consistency, and some have willingly sacrificed for its sake. But holding this view is not an option for those in government, charged with the protection of citizens who share this position and those who do not. Adherence to this principle could involve unwilling sacrifice for many others.

Some have dismissed this argument as "moral relativism" or the assertion that the ends justify the means. But this betrays a misunderstanding of ethics itself. The most difficult moral decisions in government are required when two moral goods come into conflict. Most of us believe in the dignity of the human person, a principle that covers even those who commit grave evils. Most of us believe in the responsibility of government to protect the innocent from death and harm. Government officials pursue both moral goods in a complicated world. In retrospect, they may sometimes get the balance wrong. But national security decisions are not made in retrospect.

I suspect that most Americans, in considering these matters, would come to certain conclusions: There should be a broad presumption against harsh interrogations by our government. An atmosphere of permission can result in discrediting crimes such as Abu Ghraib. But perhaps in the most extreme cases -- when the threat of a terrorist attack is clear and serious -- American officials may need to employ harsh questioning, while protecting terrorists from permanent injury. In broad outlines, this approach is consistent with the Justice Department memos.

I remain ambivalent about these issues. There may be other, equally effective ways to get information from terrorists -- I don't know enough about such techniques to be certain. Elements of the interrogation program may have been mistaken. But these were not clear or obvious calls -- and they deserve more than facile, retrospective judgments.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:04 PM

It's precisely those concerns you mention, Peter, that persuaded me not to visit the USA during the 8 years of the Bush administration, and I am still rather reluctant to visit there now, because I feel pretty much like I'm living next door to Germany, circa 1938 or something along that line...potentially. I feel there is that risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:01 PM

Peter-

That is a chilling reality to ponder, and not that much of a stretch in my opinion.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:58 PM

I agree. Other things should still go ahead, of course.   One is just desperate for the days when justice will be as unnoticed as air, that is all. As the Taoists say.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:56 PM

I have not seen anyone suggest that priorities like health care should not be addressed at the same time that people are being held responsible for the crimes they have committed. I can't imagine where anyone would have gotten the idea that such a thing was even being considered. I think the idea that all of them can't be addressed at the same time is no more than an excuse for not dealing with bringing criminals to justice.

We have different agencies for dealing with addressing all of these different concerns, and there is no reason why we can't do all of it all at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:43 PM

There are many mansions in the house of Washington. There is no reason a special investigator in the Justice Department could not press forward while th emain business of the Senate, Congress and Executive branches continues to be reconstructing a viable economy, etc.

Peter, your chilling hypothetical narrative was very persuasive.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:34 PM

It would be more accurate for me to say that there are nuanced differences in our perspectives. I think your perspective is valid. However, so is mine.

It is vitally important that some voices insist, as do you, that the first priority must be to insure the USA be held accountable to the world, and that our political leaders must be held accountable to the people, even if that means everything else of importance is allowed to sit on the sidelines.   Otherwise, it is likely the whole thing would indeed be swept under the rug.

I think it also vitally important that some voices insist, as do I, that the nation and our political leaders continue to press on and prioritize addressing these other issues. Otherwise, we come to an empasse and the nation enables the politicos and power brokers on both sides of the political spectrum to use us as pawns.

As always, there is a dialectic out of which it is my belief that a synthesis will arise.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:59 AM

Peter,

Again, I agree with you.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:35 AM

My point was a little different. it was that none of these other things you want will be secure unless the fundamentals are restored. It is the complacency of living in a supposedly law abiding society that blinds one to this. So here's an example:

Tomorrow morning, your best friend since high school, an American citizen, Abdul, for some unknown reason simply goes mad and takes a gun and somehow finds his way to a place where he kills Barack Obama.   This is a national emergency. You are taken into custody as a known associate. You are completely innocent, but there are precedents now for torture under extraordinary circumstances, "no torture and the rule of law" was just a declaration by a President who is now dead -- it is a Presidential directive which can be overturned by another Presidential directive -- and anyway, lots of people thought it was ok as long as it yielded results. So you now have no rights. You are a citizen of a lawless state. (If you are a citizen of a foreign country resident in America, you are in even more trouble, if that is possible). Every email or letter you have ever written, all your tax returns, every affair you have ever had, all your personal details, all are subject to viewing and investigating and subjected to the darkest of interpretations by authorities who you know nothing about, and over whom you have no say, and no recourse, and no right of complaint. It is a national emergency, which justifies everything they want to do to you. Laws don't matter, because flushing out the conspiracy to which you are a party -- that is what the new President says, Joe Biden, the people's friend, says -- and he must be obeyed because he is the President and can do no wrong -- finding out what your role in the conspiracy is, is all important.   Your torture continues for days or weeks until they are bored with you, and you have told them anything to get them to stop, and you are permanently crippled in body and mind.

But the government that did this needs to carry on doing its other important work. Janie will understand that it was done with the best intentions, and we had other important priorities, like health care to deal with.

Without the rule of law nailed down hard and tight, this is what is not just a fantasy, but absolutely possible -- every single aspect of it has happened, and (god forbid) could happen tomorrow. Until you are safe in your person, the rest is less important. I think.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 11:08 AM

Frank, it shouldn't just go away, and I have written nothing to suggest that I think it should.

I also think there is other very important business to which attention needs paid.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:57 AM

Peter, I think we actually disagree very little. Holding those who formulated these policies should be dealt with and addressed primarily by the justice system. Obama has essentially backed up and said that.

For the legal system to be reinstated, it seems to me that not only must the justice system be empowered to operate independent from political pressures to foster "power" agendas, but the population must also believe the system is operating independently and impartially.

It seems to me that the most effective use of the "Bully Pulpit" is not to make statements about who will or will not prosecuted, but to advocate in words, and to practice, by transparent deed, policies that foster an independent judiciary and that allow the justice department the independence to fully explore and then follow the appropriate course of action based on our laws and constitution.

I am not worried that this administration will attempt to sweep this under the rug. And I think it clear that national debate and discussion will continue. However, this is not the only important issue pertaining to social justice that needs rectified. What has happened with the financial system, the gutting of worker rights, the lack of universal health care are all important social justice issues where the rights and needs of people have been strongly eroded, and not just during the last 8 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:54 AM

The problem in part comes from the fact that the people of Rome see themselves in Caesar's face, and their will in his acts, even when Caesar goes mad.

Bush and Company and the heinous crimes done under the stresses of their time are, sadly, our own; we elected them, on the whole, and gave them our highest titles to borrow and use.

That's why all this rationalization occurs, where for an individual committing a crime against society there would be no question.

Personally, I think we should do as Germany did: pay the price, stand up to the trial, and then rebuild with strength.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 10:37 AM

Going forward is not sweeping dirt under the rug.

The black mark on US history has already been set.

Psychiatrists and medical doctors were employed in the use of torture.

Those who did it were "only following orders".

Does this sound familiar?

This is not going away any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 08:34 AM

I respectfully disagree Janie (and I mean respectfully). The whole enterprise of the last eight years has been about force and power, and to hell with the "collateral damage". There is a kind of carelessness and hardening of hearts that goes along with that that is supremely dangerous (the Bible goes on about it at great length as essentially the only succour the poor have, i.e., eventually the rich become stupid with their power). Without the rule of law nothing else matters. I have been in third world countries where the judiciary is completely corrupt, and nothing means anything: not health care, not education, nothing. People are forced to live their lives for themselves, and corruption is the only protection against raw power.

The United States has been way down on that slide. It is a military empire, and this sort of thing begins by corrupting abroad, and then corrupting at home. The only thing that has kept it from turning into a tyranny has been the last election. It is absolutely crucial that the legal system be reinstated. The only reason why it appears to be "partisan" is that the rot had spread so far that almost all of Washington was complicit in the slide towards tyranny. I'm not speaking as a crazy (or not much): I think that is a sober assessment of where it was going. Everything depends on turning it back.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 02:28 AM

I don't think we frame our discussions about whether or not to prosecute people for murder, for instance, using some of the language in some of the above posts. We don't say, for instance, oh, we wouldn't want anyone to think we're scapegoating or seeking vengance if we prosecute you for murder, so you just go on ahead and get on with your life, and we'll just pretend it never happened.

Why is it that only the little crimes get punished?

This is the main problem with our society. If we held the people who commit the most heinous crimes responsible (like the people who have gotten us into the mess we're in now, including the ones who took us to war, killed hundreds of thousands of people, and kidnapped and tortured a lot of innocent people), maybe people wouldn't think they could do whatever they want with impunity. And maybe they wouldn't do those things.

Because that is the message we're sending. We're saying that certain people in this country can pretty much do whatever they want, and if they do it big enough and cause enough mayhem and harm enough people, nobody's going to bother to hold them responsible for any of it, because we wouldn't want people to think we're looking for vengeance. There is no way out of that mess. We might just as well give up trying to make the world a better place, because with that kind of double standard, it just ain't going to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:48 AM

Again, very well said. You are mirroring my own thinking on this matter, Janie.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:40 AM

I also do not happen to think it is simple, in the real world, to sort out what is for "the greater good."   I am always suspicious of "either/or" thinking..

Now, my own values are that torture is never "for the greater good." The United States has had an official policy for the past several years that allowed torture. That has to stop immediately, and apparently it has. Should halting the practice of torture be up at the top of list? In my view, yes. Once that practice has been stopped, however, I am not convinced that a huge fight over to what extent past transgressions should be punished should remain at the very top of the list given the number of pressing and difficult issues we face as a country, and as a world.

Others may choose to interpret the above paragraph as saying no prosecutions should occur, or that the whole issue should then be swept under the rug and forgotten about until the next time. It is likely that some will choose to interpret what I wrote in that manner. However, that would be others' interpretations, and not at all what I wrote or implied.

The thing is, we all interpret. We all read into the statements of others much that is not actually said, or even implied. We make assumptions. We react emotionally. We distort. We filter. And we fail to examine this tendency within ourselves.

In my opinion -and it is only an opinion - informed, influenced and distorted by my own values, priorities, experiences and personal needs and concerns for myself and my family, is that what should come next, once the torture is stopped, should not be front and center, or the number one priority of national debate or partisan politics.   I don't think it is for the "greater good."   Tending to the immediate needs of people out of work, health care and environmental issues are all much, much, more important issues to me, and more in the interest of the greater good, than is fighting about who/whether/etc. should be punished for creating or implementing an official policy that said torture is OK, given that said policy has been terminated.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:35 AM

Yup, I'd certainly agree with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:24 AM

Well, it seems to me that it's about time we started prosecuting all of our war crimes and that we stop committing any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 01:11 AM

All kinds of heinous things were done in Vietnam by the USA and allied forces...summary execution of soldiers and civilians, torture, throwing live people out of helicopters, massacring villages...

Yes, many of these war crimes have happened before.

During the Reagan administration the USA funded paramilitary forces who, with CIA and American assistance, tortured and murdered thousands of people in Latin American countries.

During the occupation of the Phillipines after the Spanish-American War, the USA occupying forces waged a brutal war against the Filipinos (who wanted independence). Many thousands of Filipinos died.

It's not that unusual, it just doesn't get talked about much in the American media, that's all, and they don't teach it to the schoolkids. Bush and his cronies were a little more blatant about it...maybe because they were a lot prouder of themselves...as can happen with ideological zealots. Maybe, as Janie say, it's a good thing they were so arrogant, because now it's been brought out into the open.

Yes, as Janie is saying, it's a matter for the US Justice system to deal with...or the World Court (which the USA simple ignores when it says something against the wishe of the USA). Obama would be wise, I think, to leave it to the US Justice system and apply his own energies elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 26 Apr 09 - 12:02 AM

Had to switch computers so my son could go to bed.

To say it will be a difficult and tricky process is not to say it can not, should not, or will not be done. To howl for immediate blood, however, certainly gives the appearance of vengeance rather than justice being the primary motive. And we all know that in the public arena, appearance matters.

I also think it very naive to believe, as apparently many people in this country do, that the Bush administration is the first ever in the history of the USA to condone the use of torture. It is ironic that the Bush administration's efforts to provide a legal basis for allowing torture resulted in public disclosure of the practice of torture by agents of the US government that have likely gone on since we first became a nation - only it was "off the books" or "under the table."

Maybe we should thank them for bringing these practices into the public domain in such a way that we average citizens can no longer turn a blind eye.    I imagine that in previous administrations, these activities were of the sort that most presidents took the position of "I won't ask, and don't you tell me."

I should say I certainly have no evidence or knowledge that US agents have used torture in the past in a systemic, albeit covert, way.   But I have no reason to suppose otherwise, based on our history of other covert operations that run contrary to our values (i.e. arranging for assassinations, covert funding of rebellions that were politically expedient, or overt support for oppressive regimes when it was in our material interests - The Shah of Iran, for example, or any number of dirty little Central American operations).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 11:30 PM

Peter, I am not saying that no one should be prosecuted or that national or international law should be ignored. As I understand Little Hawk, that is not what he is suggesting either.

Obama, as he already knows, made a significant mistep in making statements regarding prosecution or pardon prematurely. As LH noted, the appropriate branch of government to address and speak to these issues is the justice system.

It is going to be a difficult business within our nation to address that our government sanctioned policies that endorsed torture, and to right those wrongs through a process that ultimately leads a significant number of our population to the conclusion that prosecutions are in pursuit of justice and not more political throat-cutting.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:46 PM

As long as all of this was done for the benefit of Israel, Obama's handlers won't have a problem with it, any of it!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:31 PM

I think it needs to be remembered that when we committed torture. And I say "we" because it was the government of this country that did it to people of other countries. When we committed torture, we were not the victims of that crime. If we prosecute the people who were directly responsible, we aren't taking revenge on people who harmed us. We are taking responsibility for the harm we did to others.

And if we don't do it, I hope like hell that other governments will. Because this sort of thing can't be allowed to happen in the "civilized West" without the people responsible being brought to justice. Otherwise, we're no different than Saddam. Oops. I guess we would be different then, because HE was brought to justice for his war crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:19 PM

My post was not in response to the one immediately before it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 09:18 PM

Well, in that case, why do we even bother to have a law against torture?

We executed people in the past for doing the same things we ourselves have now done. Where was our forgiveness then? I think if we are only willing to enforce laws on other people, while "forgiving" ourselves for doing the same things, that makes us far worse than hypocrites. And it compounds the criminality of what we have done.

If our government prosecutes people who are responsible for torture, it's not something we are doing to others. It is our country taking responsibility for our transgressions against others. If we say, "Oops. Sorry. Get over it." We are sending the rest of the world the message that we really don't give a goddamn shit about anyone but ourselves.

Now, I realize this is a stance that this country has taken for a very long time, but I thought we had decided that we were going to do better than that now. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 04:59 PM

No, no, no. The three foundational principles of a democracy have to be (1) the rule of law; (2) the dignity of the human -- everyone is worthy of dignity; (3) innocent until proven guilty.

Not one person, not one, has been brought to a fair trial. Therefore they were innocent when they were tortured. They were tortured on the say so of the people who tortured them.

The United States has signed -- Ronald Reagan signed -- an International Treaty against Torture. It violated that treaty (as far as I can tell). This makes it a nation whose promises and signed oaths and legislative laws mean nothing.

Do these things mean nothing to you? If they mean nothing to you, then it means that the government of the United States is allowed to do what it wishes with its own citizens, who have no recourse in a lawless state (this is before we even get into illegal wiretapping. That is what it means.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:52 PM

Many people in the Republican Party did view Watergate as a partisan matter, and they went after Bill Clinton in the 90's with that in mind, hoping to exact a similar retribution on the Democrats.

They were driven by the desire for vengeance (and the desire to damage their competition) far more than by the zeal for justice, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:37 PM

Well said, Janie. Those were the points I had in mind.

Much of the impulse behind some people's zeal to prosecute a whole lot of people from the past Bush administration is driven as much by a desire for vengeance as anything else. To seek justice is wise. To seek vengeance is, in my opinion, exceedingly unwise.

If Obama is wise, he won't involve himself much in taking vengeance on the past administration, he'll get on with whatever needs to be done now.

I understand that as a matter of legal principle it is important to take some action over illegal acts committed by a previous administration, if only establish a precedent against some future repetition of such illegal acts. Fine. Leave it to the courts and lawyers then, but don't let it become a political football for the new administration to kick around, because I think it will waste their energy and bring them a lot of trouble they don't need.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 02:22 PM

Greg:

Well, the initial breakin was certainly partisan, no?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 10:54 AM

Watergate a "partisan vendetta"? Jaysus, someone needs to read some real history.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 25 Apr 09 - 03:19 AM

Not sure how well I can express this, but will try. I guess what I am putting out here are simply ideas to ponder.

In my view, there is a difference between expediency and effectiveness, but the two are easily confused, and the differences can be subtle.

Rigid enforcement of laws is not always effective. Neither is scapegoating.

Retribution has it's place.

Forgiveness has it's place.

Some combination of the two are probably necessary for reconciliation.

There is no such thing as moral perfection, and certainly no agreement on what is moral.

However, in the western world there is some significant, though quite generalized, agreement about our stated values with respect to what we in the West view as inalienable human rights.

The pursuit of individual justice sometimes enhances, and sometimes impedes the promotion or expression of those values at a societal level. Ditto the reverse.

Finding synthesis is both nuanced and subjective. Failure to acknowledge all of the above is ultimately ineffective in either expressing or actualizing those values.

Absolutism is ineffective, illogical, and ultimately, arrogant. No one has a corner on the market on truth. Values are not fact or truth. They are values. Most of us are very selective when it comes to our notions of absolutism and the law. If we are both in full agreement with the values expressed by the law, and are also not personally injured or negatively affected by application of the law, then we are likely to be very strongly in favor of strict application of the law.

And visa versa.