BS: Obama and torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:21 PM

That's not true. Several of us who favored his becoming president have been very vocal on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:12 PM

All those that favoured this guy becoming president seem very quiet on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 May 09 - 12:32 PM

Well, the tracks lead to Cheney's office when it came to requesting waterboarding and other extreme interrogation methods be used by those questioning Sadam's inner circle after the invasion of Iraq, in a desperate attempt to confirm a link with Al Quida or the location of weapons of mass destruction. The techniques produced little useful information (as had been predicted), compared with what interrogators harvested initially. These results did not discourage Cheney from requesting that the same methods be used on suspected Al Quida members when they were captured.

It would be wrong to recommend that similar measures be applied to Cheney and his staff to persuade them to come clean on what they knew and what they did.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 09 - 12:28 PM

Nancy Pelsoi was briefed on September 4th, 2002. Note: that was before the Iraq war began in March 2003.

The document showing precicely what Pelosi was told was supplied by Leon Panetta, current CIA director and fellow California Democrat.

Panetta confims that contents of the breifing document were eplained to Pelosi in person and that she had not problems with any of the harsh interrogation practices.

Porter Goss was there in person and was briefed along with Pelosi.

The CIA agents who did the briefing, Leon Panetta and Porter Goss all tell the same story. Only Nancy Peolsi says differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 May 09 - 12:16 PM

I fail to see the point. The point is not that a reasonable man or a reasonable country panicked. It was not a reasonable response. And so far we have absolutely no evidence except the sayso of government officials who are deeply implicated in the whole mess that anything of "high value" was discovered that couldn't have been found without torture. And it doesn't matter anyway. The point is that it was WRONG AND ILLEGAL. The United States is a signatory to a convention (the blessed Ronald Reagan signed, so how could it be anything but written in gold letters in heaven) that makes it illegal.   People do wrong and illegal things: the Americans took away basic rights of the Japanese in World War II, and it took them forty years to be ashamed of it, and rectify it.   The British are using the court system to try and figure out what went wrong with their response to the war. The Americans will probably do the same, once they get going. If they don't, their ability to fight the wars that are supposed to stop Al-Qaeda in the future will be crippled, because of the moral guilt that attaches to them, and helps Al-Qaeda recruit people.



yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 09 - 11:52 AM

Lemmee see if I got this right.

Bush, Cheney & various attorneys & advisors took 9/11 as an excuse to pursue an invasion of Iraq, costing many billions and taking many more lives than 9/11, based on faulty intelligence and wishful thinking, and then tried to justify it....both BEFORE & AFTER the fact ....by the use of interrogation measures which experts told them didn't work and were not designed for such use.
They then tried to cover up their bad policies with bad logic ("it's not illegal if the president authorizes it") and misleading 'briefings' and 'classified' memos.
Now they and their supporters and those who are desperately trying to salvage any bit of 'face' for the Republican party are trying to distract us from the issue by saying, "Hey, no matter WHAT we did, Pelosi and others shoulda figgered out from those carefully done 'briefings' what was really happening in 'enhanced interrogation'!"

Have I got that about right?

The CIA 'briefers' were very careful in precisely what they told Congress. If you want to assert that Pelosi & others 'should have gotten the picture', I can't stop you, but *I* intend to wait until more facts are out to agree that Pelosi & Goss & others knew exactly what what was happening, and *I* intend to focus on the FACTS that the interrogation practices were illegal and immoral and were done on bad advice and for the wrong reasons and caused more problems than they fixed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:54 AM

Yes. Peter T.


But the laws only apply to the OTHER side.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:41 AM

"the contemptible hypocrisy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is feigning outrage now about techniques that she knew about and did nothing to stop at the time.

My critics say: So what if Pelosi is a hypocrite? Her behavior doesn't change the truth about torture.

But it does. The fact that Pelosi (and her intelligence aide) and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and dozens of other members of Congress knew about the enhanced interrogation and said nothing, and did nothing to cut off the funding, tells us something very important.

Our jurisprudence has the "reasonable man" standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances.

On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.

Moreover, the circle of approval was wider than that. As Slate's Jacob Weisberg points out, those favoring harsh interrogation at the time included Alan Dershowitz, Mark Bowden and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. In November 2001, Alter suggested we consider "transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies" (i.e., those that torture). And, as Weisberg notes, these were just the liberals.

So what happened? The reason Pelosi raised no objection to waterboarding at the time, the reason the American people (who by 2004 knew what was going on) strongly reelected the man who ordered these interrogations, is not because she and the rest of the American people suffered a years-long moral psychosis from which they have just now awoken. It is because at that time they were aware of the existing conditions -- our blindness to al-Qaeda's plans, the urgency of the threat, the magnitude of the suffering that might be caused by a second 9/11, the likelihood that the interrogation would extract intelligence that President Obama's own director of national intelligence now tells us was indeed "high-value information" -- and concluded that on balance it was a reasonable response to a terrible threat.

And they were right. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051403603.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:17 AM

And what was that tough decision that George Bush made? To torture people so that he could find a justification for a war that was unjustified?

And what is wrong about impeachment? Impeachment is to bring a president's actions under scrutiny. I seem to recall they did this about Clinton's sex life and the Republic still stands. As I recalll, impeachment is in the Constitution of the United States, and is there in order to provide a check against the executive branch engaging in "high crimes and misdemeanours". If Obama does that, he should be impeached.

He is not God or a king, although you wouldn't know it. He is a branch of government. A government of laws and not of men.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:52 AM

"BTW, bb, how do you know what she knew and whne she knew it???"

I never claimed to- I only point out that you are not telling the truth, again.

It should be investigated- and IF she was told I do not see that she has any excuse. Let them ALL be looked at- and start the impeachment procedings now against Obama, for when HE makes a tough decision that the next administration disagrees with.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:46 AM

Geeze, I just hate being wring... lol..

BTW, bb, how do you know what she knew and whne she knew it???

The problem, as I see it, is that when Pelosi calls for a "Truth Commission" on torture the Repubs want that commission to look only at Pelosi... I say lets have a "Truth Cimission" and let the chips fall where they may even if it means that Cheney or Rumsfeld will have to testify ***under oath*** and be subject to criminal penalties...

Yeah, let 'er rip!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:23 AM

"If ya' listen to the Repubs it was Nancy Pelosi who ordered up all of this illegeal stuff??? "


Wring again, Bobert. Just that she KNEW and did not have any problem with it at the time. Even you should be able to understand the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:40 PM

I said way back when we first started hearing about torture being practiced by the US, that there is only one reason for torturing people, and that is to get them to confess to things that aren't true. And I said at the time that they were doing it to create justifications for their war.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:27 PM

If you read and study ALL news sources, not just the ones you like, it will become apparent that there is much more to the story than what the conservatives are hoping can be shown about what Pelosi knew.

She has denied again that she 'knew' about waterboarding as a specific practice, and facts (the ones that can BE made public) are beginning to support her claims.

On the other hand, details from a number of sources are beginning to emerge that the impetus FOR waterboarding were not only political, but came from Cheney's office.

WITNESSES to 'enhanced interrogation' agree that 1)it did little good, and 2)it was strongly suggested & encouraged by Bush/Cheney officials in order to create a link between Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq.

The evidence for this grows every day...and Cheney seems to be almost saying so.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:01 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.u.s.detainees/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:13 PM

The key, my dear Watson, is to figure out when Pelosi's clock stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:18 PM

If a source is evidently untrustworthy, on the basis of past experience, it is reasonable not to trust it. That doesn't mean that it may not be accurate on some matters. As the saying goes, a stopped clock tells the right time twice every day - but if you want to check the time you won't turn to a stopped clock to find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:43 PM

Wow... If ya' listen to the Repubs it was Nancy Pelosi who ordered up all of this illegeal stuff??? Geeze, the Repubs must be right about the Dems...

Bad Dems for ordering up torture... Bad Dems!!!

(But, Boberdz, the Dems didn't order up the torture...)

Oh??? That ain't what the Repubs are sayin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:29 PM

Does anybody believe Nancy Pelosi was mislead about torture?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:28 PM

On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.


True or false?



In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."


True or false??



When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."


True or false???




The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.


True or false??




In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."


True or false?




Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission." He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.

True or false??




We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi's top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded.

True or false???

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:23 PM

An anonymous source. No transcript or record of this supposed "briefing". "almost certain to have told". Etc.

Lies, weasel-words and supposition.

Standard Rovian output. Worthy of the 'sainted' Joe McCarthy: "I have in my hand evidence....."

***

"The memories of men are too frail a thread to hang history from."
          - JOHN STILL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:14 PM

I've never been a supporter of Pelosi, but I support her efforts to bring those responsible for the Bush administration's torture program to justice. Hopefully, whatever her own culpability is in that will not prevent her from continuing her efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:02 AM

Greg F,

Care to point out the lies in that article?


I thought not. You are saying that since you do not like the source, you will not consider that anything he says is true-

I will apply that to all the posts you make in the future.

Or you could look at the facts, and make a resonable judgement ABOUT THOSE FACTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:34 AM

An article by Karl Rove- the king of lies & bullshit.

What's next, BB? A piece by Ernst Zündel ?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:30 AM

Karl Rove was, of course, part of the original torture machine; but he's right. The Democrats were up to their necks in this, and lied.

And now, President Obama is lying about the content of the photos he won't release -- you can just hear him lying in old fashioned Karl Rove, George Bush speak. We have the first of his lies. All to cover up truths that will out sooner or later.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:51 AM

Congress and Waterboarding
Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to 'torture.

By KARL ROVE
Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."

The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.

In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."

Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission." He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.

We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi's top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded. Mr. Sheehy was almost certain to have told Mrs. Pelosi. He has not commented publicly about the 2002 or the 2003 meetings.

So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?

more

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 13 May 09 - 11:28 PM

It is a sad commentary that my most trusted op-ed sources are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:08 PM

What really astonishes me is the number of people here in the US to refer to Jack Bauer and the television show 24 as a rationale for using torture, as if Jack Bauer and 24 weren't entirely fictional.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:04 PM

I suspect all of us who read John Le Carre' realize he knows what he's talking about, but what he doesn't say is usually more compelling than what he is willing to say, and Cheney is verbalizing what Le Carre' doesn't say.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: robomatic
Date: 13 May 09 - 08:41 PM

I was listening to some of the issue today on the radio, and enjoyed the comment "people resort to torture because it's easier to hit them than to outsmart them."

In the literary vein, some of John Le Carre's earlier works contain some superb examples of nonviolent interrogation, particularly the series including Tinker Tailor and Smiley's People (and dramatized with Sir Alec Guinness in the 1980's).

As for ex Vice President Cheney, I enjoy his appearance on the talkies, because (a)he has every right to argue the efficacy of the methods being used by his version of government and (b) I think he is an excellent argument for the Democratic Party and the current administration smells better all the time by comparison to the previous, and Cheney sharpens this perception. Let him and Rush Limbaugh fight it out in the mud, one pig with another, and let us piously remember the likes of William F Buckley and Everett Dirksen.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 09 - 04:52 PM

All they need to do is to show a picture of one of the prisoners sitting around calmly eating a ham sandwich, and all of the viewers will yawn, go to bed, and the issue will be over.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 13 May 09 - 03:09 PM

Hard to believe anything so stupid from a supposedly smart bunch of people. Obama is now proposing not to release the photographic record from Abu Ghraib, after he let it be known that he would. What does he think is now going to happen? Everyone is just going to nod and say, sure? No one is going to imagine the worst? This is the sort of monumentally stupid thing the Bush administration did, turning everything it did into toxic suspicion.   Executive branch toxicitiy strikes (as I have predicted since the start of all this).

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:43 PM

Well, I guess we'll just see how it all unfolds, won't we?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:30 PM

It has been reported that Elvis is alive, and LGM were the ones to destroy the WTC....



"The run-up to the disastrous Iraq war was notable for its smothering lack of debate. That served us poorly then and it would serve us poorly now if people who know something about the utility, not to mention the morality, of enhanced interrogation techniques keep their mouths shut. The Obama administration ought to call Cheney's bluff, if it is that, and release the memos."

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:26 PM

It has been reported that, according to the FBI and others, the people who were being tortured actually gave more information prior to their being tortured than after it commenced - that the suspects clammed up after the torture started, and then started cooperating again after it stopped.

It has also been reported that the Obama administration is thinking that, now that Cheney has demanded the release of all of the classified records, it might be a good idea to do just that. And some are saying that what is contained in the records that have not yet been released is even more damning than what is contained in the ones that have been released. The person reporting said that if those records are released, things are going to look even worse for Cheney than they do now.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 09 - 03:09 PM

What if Cheney's Right?

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Blogger Alert: I have written a column in defense of Dick Cheney. I know how upsetting this will be to some Cheney critics, and I count myself as one, who think -- in respectful paraphrase of what Mary McCarthy said about Lillian Hellman -- that everything he says is a lie, including the ands and the thes. Yet I have to wonder whether what he is saying now is the truth -- i.e., torture works.

In some sense, this is an arcane point since the United States insists it will not torture anymore -- not that, the Bush people quickly add, it ever did. Torture is a moral abomination, and President Obama is right to restate American opposition to it. But where I reserve a soupçon of doubt is over the question of whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually work. That they do not is a matter of absolute conviction among those on the political left, who seem to think that the CIA tortured suspected terrorists just for the hell of it.

Cheney, though, is adamant that the very measures that are now deemed illegal did work and that, furthermore, doing away with them has made the country less safe. Cheney said this most recently on Sunday, on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Those policies were responsible for saving lives," he told Bob Schieffer. In effect, Cheney poses a hard, hard question: Is it more immoral to torture than it is to fail to prevent the deaths of thousands?

Cheney is a one-man credibility gap. In the past, he has said, "We know they [the Iraqis] have biological and chemical weapons," when it turned out we knew nothing of the sort. He insisted that "the evidence is overwhelming" that al-Qaeda had been in high-level contact with Saddam Hussein's regime when the "evidence" was virtually nonexistent. And he repeatedly asserted that Iraq had a menacing nuclear weapons program. As a used-car dealer, he would have no return customers.

Still, every dog has his day, and Cheney is barking up a storm on the efficacy of what can colloquially be called torture. He says he knows of two CIA memos that support his contention that the harsh interrogation methods worked and that many lives were saved. "That's what's in those memos," he told Schieffer. They talk "specifically about different attack planning that was underway and how it was stopped."

Cheney says he once had the memos in his files and has since asked that they be released. He's got a point. After all, this is not merely some political catfight conducted by bloggers, although it is a bit of that, too. Inescapably, it is about life and death -- not ideology, but people hurling themselves from the burning World Trade Center. If Cheney is right, then let the debate begin: What to do about enhanced interrogation methods? Should they be banned across the board, always and forever? Can we talk about what is and not just what ought to be?

In a similar vein, can we also find out what Nancy Pelosi knew and when she knew it? If she did indeed know about waterboarding back in 2003, that would hardly make her a war criminal. But if she knew and insists otherwise, that would make her one of those people who will not acknowledge that the immediate post-Sept. 11 atmosphere allowed for methods that now seem abhorrent. Certain Democratic politicians remind me of what Oscar Levant supposedly said of Doris Day: "I knew [her] before she was a virgin." They have no memory of who they used to be.

Back in my college days, there was much late-night discussion about the "free man" -- not politically free, mind you, but free of bourgeois cultural restraints. (The once-important writer Jean Genet, a former petty criminal and prostitute, was often cited.) In political terms, Cheney has been a free man ever since he eschewed any presidential ambitions. He became the most impolitic of politicians and continues in that role, taking neither a vow of penitence nor a vow of silence in his vice presidential afterlife. He says the issues are too important for him to be, as is traditional, mum.

He is right about that. The run-up to the disastrous Iraq war was notable for its smothering lack of debate. That served us poorly then and it would serve us poorly now if people who know something about the utility, not to mention the morality, of enhanced interrogation techniques keep their mouths shut. The Obama administration ought to call Cheney's bluff, if it is that, and release the memos. If even a stopped clock is right twice a day, this could be Cheney's time.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 12 May 09 - 02:39 PM

Once again, the Obama administration is threatening the British about the release of torture information.   In a recent letter, they have essentially said that the plaintiff in a British court should not be given access to material about his torture -- and the administration is threatening the mutual security pact if they continue to demand it.

This is absolutely illegal under international law. As usual, the online magazine Salon has the story today:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:18 PM

Any politician who has the nerve to stick his neck out is going to be attacked by somebody. Obama looks to Churchill and Lincoln. If he lives up to that standard, he would be unusual indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 May 09 - 04:40 PM

Christopher Hitchens (no mindless liberal he!) has a nice peace on the British torture regime in World War II:

http://www.slate.com/id/2217583/

The lionization (I use the term carefully) of Churchill by Obama is an amusing piece of rhetorical table-turning, but I'm not sure Churchill is such a great source of ethics. His behaviour here and there in his career was not exactly stellar.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 May 09 - 04:30 PM

I was probably overreacting. The fact is that all my students use Wikipedia as their authoritative source on all topics. I have no objection to anyone starting with Wikipedia (I use it all the time, and I think it is brilliant, and have contributed myself), but stopping there is the problem.

A real problem with Wikipedia is that there is no place for opinion, really (the argument areas are not all that friendly, I find).   They need to create some more safety valves, as opposed to the endless rewriting and watchdogging of so many areas. (They need a Mudcat BS zone).

I also agree that the science parts of Wikipedia are very, very good. At some point you can tell that some professor or her students went to work on the entries -- the physics and math ones are amazing. I am quite surprised at how poor some areas are: music, for example, by and large, is disappointing. Not pop music: endless stuff there, but classical music and jazz, etc.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 04 May 09 - 01:46 PM

"Each book and each Wikipedia entry has to be judged on its own merits. "

true.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 09 - 01:14 PM

I never said that Wikipedia is necessarily accurate. In fact, I said at least twice that I don't consider it necessarily accurate. What I have been saying is that books are not necessarily any more accurate than Wikipedia, simply for the fact that they are books. One cannot seriously say that in all cases, any book will be more accurate than any Wikipedia entry, as was suggested above by a poster. Each book and each Wikipedia entry has to be judged on its own merits.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 May 09 - 12:54 PM

Wikipedia entries are fairly good on science topics.
To generalize from that finding to Wikipedia entries about politics is a bit careless.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 09 - 12:11 PM

I should point out here, that I consider much of what I read in Wikipedia (on subjects that are in dispute) to be inaccurate. But I also regard much of what I read in books on many subjects to be inaccurate as well.

Books can be written by anyone, just like Wikipedia entries. They can have an axe to grind, just like Wikipedia entries. They can be published by unscrupulous people, just like Wikipedia entries. Books as a category are no more credible as sources of accurate information than Wikipedia. The fact of information being printed on paper does not give it any more credibility than information that appears on the internet.

The criteria for whether or not an information source is credible really has nothing to do with whether that information appears in print form or on the internet. The criteria is whether or not the information has been properly researched and presented without bias or hidden agenda. Both books as well as the internet have no shortage of examples of information not living up to those criteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 09 - 12:02 PM

Here are some articles about studies done with regard to Wikipedia's accuracy...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars


Are some people really suggesting that just because a book is a book, that automatically gives it credibility for accuracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 May 09 - 11:00 AM

I'd rather trust the New York Times than AM radio and the internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:17 AM

I can't believe anyone is still using the New York times as a source.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Teribus
Date: 04 May 09 - 10:07 AM

It is of little interest, or importance, to me whether or not you read my posts or not, but adopting the stance taken, (i.e. sticking fingers in both ears and chanting laa-laa-laa to anything counter to what you believe) is hardly the basis for any discussion. It will not prevent me from commenting when you post complete and utter tripe, which you seem to do often.

I have only ever received four PM's from you two in May 2006 and two in November 2007. If the content of your PM's were indeed an attempt by you to "establish some kind of reasonably friendly dialogue between us" then you have an extremely odd way of going about it. The language used was offensive and insulting in the extreme and hence were not considered to warrant the courtesy of any sort of response from me - Would you like me quote some of your remarks?? - Oh I forgot you won't read this.

As to the charge of me using "private stuff" contained in one of your PM's. That is absolute rubbish, you stated nothing in that mail that you hadn't previously mentioned on threads on this forum previously - you are talking here about going to school in the US and being bullied because of your views on the British being at odds with what was being taught. You have mentioned this before openly in threads by way of explanation on your views of the US and the UK. You introduced it into the public domain - Not me. You make personal attacks on me then expect to receive return fire in kind. I most certainly will not be told what I can and cannot do by the likes of yourself, not now, not ever, live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 May 09 - 09:46 AM

Returning to the thread topic (!), today's New York Times (Monday) has a whole series of exculpatory interviews by people trying to weasel out of responsibility for who ordered what when -- most of it (of course) on "deep background".   It reads like the kind of thing you might imagine the interrogators at Nuremberg hearing: Oh, I was opposed all along, of course I passed the memo along, but I never approved it.   And yes of course we stopped it as soon as we could. Shocked, shocked, that gambling was going on.

So painfully obvious.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 May 09 - 08:58 AM

If you look into something you know a great deal about, on Wikipedia, you can sometimes find bogus entries, but it's been my experience that those bogus entries don't last very long, because somebody has come in and corrected them.
             A lager problem that I've seen is, somebody will come in with some political bent or another, and enter something under a topic, someone else will correct it, and it's hard to know which is accurate.