I'm very disappointed in Obama

You're trying to close the lid on this Pandora's box and I'm wondering why? Is the office of the president getting to you? We've heard this national security argument before, it's bull shit!



Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.

I doubt if the soldiers and civilians serving in Iraq

Coaster's picture

and Afghanistan would agree with you.

If Obama wants to play the humane card.

michael3b's picture

Then he's got to follow through and pull everybody out of harm's way now.  Otherwise, he's doing exactly what GW did- using a boogeyman to hijack the truth.

If these pics are definitely going to cause people to be killed (I'd like to see them prove it), then the situation is untenable.

Either we follow the rules of the Geneva Convention or we don't

Rajah's picture

Part of the agreement is that we try those responsible for war crimes and torture is a war crime. Obama said it was just a few bad apples. Again they are laying the blame on the soldiers who carried the orders out. They didn't do this on their own. These orders came from the top. Cheney and Rummy need to answer for their crimes. Anything less would not be following the letter of the law. It's a bit too late to try to sweep this under the rug. If any "safety" of our troops has been compromised then it was compromised when they started down this path of torture. Exposing it and the people behind it must be done or we'll never get pass this. Cheney didn't keep us safe. People seem to forget 9/11 happened on their watch.

Not wanting photos released doen't preclude prosecution

Coaster's picture

Not wanting to prosecute because the President doesn't want his domestic programs sidetracked, however, does. 

Not prosecuting those who believed they were acting lawfully because of the guidelines given to them by high-ranking officials (three of them, in fact) in Justice is the correct thing to do. 

It seems two of the Torture Memo writers may face disbarment.  That is not enough, is it? 


Has Sean Hannity been waterboarded yet?

Oh I don't care as much about...

Rajah's picture

The good germans who were just following orders. It's the higher ups I want and I'm not talking about those so called lawyers. Go after Cheney and his cohorts. How much you wanna bet when push comes to shove Cheney throws Bush under the bus? Jesse Ventura is right, the man is a coward.


TMundo's picture


Just following orders?

Billy_Z's picture

Coaster wrote:


Not prosecuting those who believed they were acting lawfully because of the guidelines given to them by high-ranking officials (three of them, in fact) in Justice is the correct thing to do. ...

This is iffy, I think.

In the middle 1960s, a number of German extermination camp guards were brought to trial. One was an ex-SS man named Kurt Mobius. According to him, "As police officers" it was drilled into him and the others that everything they were doing was perfectly legal because all of their orders, they were told, "from Hitler and Himmler came." That, I guess, was supposed to justify his crimes and those of the others. 

It is, after all, permissible to refuse to carry out an illegal order.

You're comparing apples to diseased rectal warts

Coaster's picture

These weren't just guidelines from a higher authority, but a binding legal opinion from what was supposed to be an independant (non-political) Justice Department.  This is not the same thing as foillowning an unlawful order.  They were applying techniques judged to be lawful under international rules of engagement. 

If it gives you pause, we did prosecute those who were abusive to prisoners, even though they were given instructions by contractors to "soften up the prisoners for interrogation."  That that woman and a couple of men in our military were sentenced to lengthy jail sentences while the higer ups went unprosecuted it pure bullshit.  One general lost her job: Whoopie fuck.

Those guys got the legal advice they wanted.

michael3b's picture

Blaming the lawyers for telling these scumbags (including those who inflicted the torture) what they wanted to hear is all well and good, but everybody from the top down are to blame.  Makes no difference what the so-called legal opinions said; torture is illegal and immoral and waterboarding is torture.  There should have been no reason to go to a lawyer, nor should there be anybody on the ground willing to commit these crimes (read: there are no "good Germans").  This is a moral issue, plain and simple, as torture and the rationale behind it (ticking timebomb, my ass) have been exposed for the inhuman, untrustworthy sham that it is.  Bringing the legal mindset to bear on this matter makes me sick, but people have to be put away for it.

That is all...Go forth and sin no more!


This isn't a binary problem

Coaster's picture

His Sec Def and field commanding generals have said release of more photos would inflame the populations.  I'm glad we have a man in the White house who actually listends to his men on the ground instead of replacing them when they tell him something he doesn't want to hear (Remember Shinseki?). 

This reminds me of the Pentagon Papers

FearlessFreep's picture

Those papers actually exposed the Johnson administration's Vietnam policy, but Nixon fought their publication anyway, thus taking responsibility on himself.


This Is A Test Comment

salman22's picture

This is a TEST Comment
Salman Khan
Salman Khan

Obama flip flops on civil liberties

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From the left of center NY Times: Rather than an easily labeled program, Mr. Obama is picking seemingly disparate elements from across the policy continuum — banning torture and other harsh interrogation techniques but embracing the endless detention of certain terror suspects without trial, closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but retaining the military commissions held there.


{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  On top of Obama flip flopping on civil liberties, our idiot Congress voted to prevent suspects held at Guantanamo from being transferred to US prisons.  Because they would be a threat to the public.  Even though no person has ever escaped from a US high security prison.


It's called "splitting the difference"

FearlessFreep's picture

And it's as lame as it was when Bill Clinton did it.


It's called "compromise"

Xur's picture

and it's necessary to the proper functioning of any healthy state. Idealism is a fine and good thing, but blind idealism is what got us into this mess in the first place, remember? 

This disturbed me yesterday

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

(06-03) 15:01 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Just over half of Americans say torture is justified in some cases to thwart terrorist attacks, and the country is evenly divided over whether to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, according to a poll that underscores President Barack Obama's challenges in selling his terror-fighting policies.


{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  I'm not sure I can live in a country where the majority of people think it's OK to torture in some situations.




Waterboarding U.S.A.

Rajah's picture

Agreed, Dan

Coaster's picture

Dan_in_Cincinnati wrote:

Just over half of Americans say torture is justified in some cases to thwart terrorist attacks...

This is both shocking and sickening.  I can't understand this mindset.  Do these people not know that torture doesn't work? 

I'm blaming this on right-wing hate radio and Jack Baur. 

How much do you want to bet...

Xur's picture

that half all lives in Ohio and Kansas and other places where there is zero threat of terrorism in any way shape or form whatsoever? Except possibly disgruntled ex-military white guys, I mean.  I bet all the folks in places like NYC and DC - you know, places that were actually hit by terrorists - would disagree with that poll.

It's called fear of mid-term elections

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Here is some more from the NY Times article:

“We knew we were inheriting a system that was not functioning,” Mr. Biden said. “We knew we were inheriting a system that was causing us great difficulty around the world.” But he suggested that the administration’s approach had been shaped by what it learned after taking office.

“It’s like opening Pandora’s box here,” Mr. Biden said. “We don’t know what’s inside the box. Now we know a lot more than we did in January.”

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Cheney used the term “ad hoc” to scorn the other party’s policy toward terrorism. But the case-by-case approach of the current White House — officials there describe it as pragmatic — has generated confusion and disappointment across the political spectrum. While Mr. Obama dismissed concerns among fellow Democrats about “30-second commercials” attacking them as weak on terrorism — “I get it,” he said — the reality is that the debate could replay in harsh fashion in the midterm elections next year.


{;-) Dan in Miami


One step forward and two steps back

Rajah's picture

He could at least give the appearance of change

At least Obama hasn't said "I feel your pain"

FearlessFreep's picture


Michelle can feel my pain anytime

Rajah's picture


What the hell was that duel with Cheney about?

michael3b's picture

Giving that scumbag an official platform outside a courtroom is disgusting to me. What the hell was he thinking? 

The conspiracy theorist in me says that 'bama wanted DC to restate those lies about 911/gitmo/endless war/executive power/etc, to reinforce rather than refute those lies. Why? Maybe for some latitude?  I dunno, but the outcome is what matters and it has been shown over and over again that people do not remember the context of what they hear as a group.  I.e. they hear a lie, someone refutes it, but the refutation serves only to reinforce the original lie. 

God, I hate politics.

That's where I want to see Cheney, in a courtroom

Rajah's picture

Or least put before Congress to answer questions. I really don't care if he's ever charged with anything or serves any time as long as he's humiliated. And if a bailiff or guard "accidently" trasers him and knocks out his pacemaker, well that's a plus plus!

A military tribunal would be fitting.

michael3b's picture

Otherwise, he's gotta go to court. If Congress calls, he'll either not show up at all or do what he's done in the past, i.e. tell them to go fuck themselves.  I honestly cannot believe that he was given that opportunity yesterday.

How about...

Wulfgar's picture

...they make him wear pink boxers and TASER him while he's being waterboarded?


By Muslims?


~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~


Cheney has very low approval ratings

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

There are quite a few Republicans who don't like him.  The Dems are happy to make him the face of the GOP. 

{;-) Dan in Miami

Like like Dick!

gamerarocks's picture

 That doesn't sound right, at all, does it?  And I lied.

Impeach Jim Gibbons!


Demo Weenies cave in to GOP scum

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From the left of center NY Times:

Senate Democrats, who last week broke with their president to join a 90-to-6 vote against funds to close Guantánamo, faulted the White House for failing to provide political cover by reassuring the public that he had a clear plan for the prisoners. The Democrats left open the possibility of authorizing the money later this year, once Mr. Obama provides a detailed plan.

Mr. Obama has pledged to press ahead, saying he is doing his best to correct the mistakes the last administration made with the prison. But Republicans have now beaten the Democrats twice on this issue in the last two years with overwhelming votes against transferring detainees to the United States.


{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  This shows why US voters don't trust Demo Weenies on security issues.  Because they are spineless.

PPS:  The plan for where the Guantanamo prisoners will go is simple.  They will go to super max prisons in the US.  We already have terrorists in these super max prisons.  Plus:  no person has ever escaped from one.



Goddamn chickenshits.

Wulfgar's picture





~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~


Ch-Ch-Ch-Cheney throws troops under the bus

Rajah's picture

Dick Cheney doesn't know shit from shinola

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Dick thinks we will all die if prisoners from Guantanamo are transferred to the USA.  Here is some info from Slate.com:

According to data provided by Traci L. Billingsley, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of these miscreants have been locked up here since the early 1990s. None of them has escaped. At the most secure prisons, nobody has ever escaped, period.

...people don't understand what life is like in these "supermax" prisons. Take ADX Florence, the supermax in Colorado—"the Alcatraz of the Rockies"—that serves as the home to Omar Abdel-Rahman, the "blind sheikh" who organized the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Zacarias Moussaoui, one of the Sept. 11 plotters; Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber; Theodore Kaczynski, the "Unabomber"; and Terry Nichols, who helped plan the Oklahoma City bombing, to name a few.


These are all truly dangerous people, but it's not as if they run into one another in the lunch line or the yard. There is no lunch line; there is no yard. Most of the prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. For one hour, they're taken to another concrete room, indoors, to exercise, by themselves. Their only windows face the sky, so they have no way of knowing even where they are within the prison. Phone calls to the outside world are banned. Finally, the prison is crammed with cameras and motion detectors.


Compartments are separated by 1,400 remote-controlled steel doors; the place is surrounded by 12-foot-high razor-wire fences; the area between the wire and the walls is further secured by laser beams and attack dogs.




{;-) Dan in Miami



That supermax in Colrado reminds me a lot of Reseda High School

Coaster's picture

My old alma matter. 

::Wipes tear from eye::

Obama firm on stopping West Bank settlements

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

In the 10 days since Netanyahu and President Barack Obama held a meeting at the White House, the Obama administration has made clear in public and private meetings with Israeli officials that it intends to hold a firm line on Obama's call to stop Israeli settlements.

According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from the Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu's dismay, Obama doesn't appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.

"This is a sea change for Netanyahu," a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House's resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States' as well as Israel's interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances." 


{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  Sounds good to me.  The problem still remains of how you stop Palestinian terrorists from operating from a new Palestinian nation.

So what should Obama do if Israel keeps building settlements?

FearlessFreep's picture

IMHO, for every dollar they spend on the settlements Washington should deduct $10 from aid to Israel.

BTW, how to you stop Israeli terror from operating out of the Israeli nation?


Instead of getting bogged down...

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

... in who did what to who over the last 5000 years, maybe it would be better to concentrate on mutual interests.  When Iran becomes a nuclear power, the problems Israel has with the Palestinians will seem like child's play. 

The Sunni Arab countries are worried about a nuclear (and Shiite) Iran and a Shiite Iraq .  There is a historical opportunity for Israel to make some alliances with these Sunni Arab countries. 

The USA can serve as the honest broker in the near East.  This will only happen if pro-Israel lobbyists in Washington become a little less short sighted.  Some of them seem to be doing so now.

{;-) Dan in Miami

They're short-sighted lately...

michael3b's picture

...because Iran is also being dangerously short-sighted.

As much as I've derided Israeli policy re: palestine, Iran-con-nukes represents the ol' proverbial clear and present danger.

So everybody's got to cool they asses down before any progress gets made...which I doubt will happen, US or no US.  Everybody gets what they want this way: iran flexes its muscle, Israel hits back first, ahmudeeenyjahjah and the mental case clerics ride a wave of anti-israel popularity, and israel doesn't ever have to settle with no west side darkies... Thus spake the Conspiracy Theorist. 

I've developed a stutter apparently.

michael3b's picture


Obama checks pockets, can't find change.

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

From theonion.com:

WASHINGTON—In a slight shift from his campaign trail promise, President Obama announced Monday that his administration's message of "Change" has been modified to the somewhat more restrained slogan "Relatively Minor Readjustments in Certain Favorable Policy Areas."

"Today, Americans face a great many challenges, and I hear your desperate calls for barely measurable and largely symbolic improvements in the status quo," said Obama, who vowed never to waver in his fight for every last infinitesimal nudge forward on the controversial issues of torture and the military ban on homosexuals.

"Remember: Yes we can, if by that you mean tiptoeing around potentially unpopular decisions that could alienate a large segment of the populace." Washington insiders said that, while the new mottos are certainly in keeping with Obama's pledge of government transparency, they are significantly less catchy.

{;-) Dan in Miami

What a Bunch of Saps You Are.

Nuke_Mecca's picture

The "torture" discussion is a fucking non-issue, raised by leftist kooks like George Soros and his media minions...the same asswipes who brought you the 9/11 conspiracy. This is no different from what happened during WWI, WWII, Vietnam and the Cold War. The only reason the discussion began was some asswipe took photos and leaked them, and the only reason is continues on and on and on is because it's fodder for the newspapers.

Muslim fanatics are killers and they should all be killed. And leave the frigg'n Jews out of it. Jeez.


michael3b's picture

It is a humane issue. We are humans. And it is torture to waterboard someone.

And before you start- they resorted to waterboarding not to save American lives, but to get the info they wanted.  Unfortunately for the victims, that info did not exist as there was no Iraqi link to 911.  My guess is that Cheney, et al knew this and were themselves involved in 911- the torture was implemented to get hold of ANY kind of link to parade around.  I don't think you realize how deeply the type of scum we had running this place stooped.  Regardless of what I think and what the fanatics want, we don't have the right to harm another. You can rationalize it all you want, but you will still be wrong.

<insert "I'd rather be wrong than have some sand n!gger raping my daughter while running through the smithsonian with a flame thrower" bullshit here>


Musty-Brainy is correct: Waterboarding was used during WWII

Coaster's picture

It was used by the Japanese against the Allies.  A handfull of Japanese were convicted of waterboarding, or as it was called back then, TORTURING our soldiers.  For that, they were sentenced to 15 years hard labor.  

Nice to see Busty's buds in the Bush administration attempted to redefine waterboarding as a shampooing gone wild.  I guess it could have been worse:  The last people who listened to a Bush ended up wandering the desert for forty years. 

Yeah, Like a Terrorist is Humane

Nuke_Mecca's picture

As if trumping up ridiculous conspiracy theories wasn't enough, now the theory du jour is that waterboarding was used to find a link between terrorism and Iraq in order to justify American military action there. Given the complications of the issue and the psyche at at the time, I do not see any reasons for believing that bright-line events pulled America into Iraq, as say for WWI and WWII. (Although going into Iraq was stupid only because it was not thought out.)

To see my fellow Americans buy into these ludicrous theories is depressing. If you're to believe the latest shit, then you should all be just as open-minded to the suggestion that the terrorists, in a brilliant example of political genius, lured America into Iraq with their agents who put on the show of WMDs, yellow cake, training camps and all that shit, to justify their continued resentment and attacks on America and the West, and to even justify their 9/11 attack retro-actively. In fact, the terrorists are so good, they continue to seed the populace with conspiracy theories in order to reduce our trust in the men and women who protect us. Meanwhile, they oppress women, kill schoolgirls, murder innocent tourists, stifle music and the arts, etc., and call us the bad guys. Fuck!

I've never seen a let up to the hypocrisy. We're not a perfect country. We are new. We are scared. But we are better than they are despite our shortcomings. So stop with the apologies, stop the lame "we are the world" shit and shout "Don't tread on me, fucker!"

The theories were based on facts, reported events, and testimony

Coaster's picture

There is also this truth which I know you, who loves this country as much as I do, will certainly buy in to:  We are better than the terrorists. 

I don't believe that for a second, and neither should you...

Nuke_Mecca's picture

Theories "based on facts, reported events, and testimony"?? Consider the sources. There are absolutely no reliable sources anymore - None, except FOX News. I believe nothing in the mainstream media or the bogus newspapers, and I take everything FOX reports with grains of salt. They all have agendas.

And consider your own words: "facts," "reported events," and "testimony." "Reported events" should be comprised of "facts," but often is not; and "testimony" is not fact. "Testimony" could be opinion, speculation and/or misinformation.

What I can trust, however, and only to an extent, are the bloggers. But that takes a lot of sifting and comparison with other sources.

Here's what I see: "Facts": taliban killing schoolgirls and tourists in their countries and all over the world, 9/11; reported events: taliban killings, 9/11; Testimony, Facts and Reported Event: over 3,000 dead Americans in New York City.

Stop being soft. Stop buying into the bull.

None except Fox News?

Rajah's picture

Ha ha ha!

So you're saying none of the torture ever happened?

You're a torture denier?

Here's some factual reporting by Fox News

"Lone gunman in Tiananmen Square"


Thank You, Rajah, for Proving My Point

Nuke_Mecca's picture

Like I said, I take Fox News with a grain of salt. The other media outlets are agenda-driven ideologue camps. Even the narrator of the YouTube video states that the Fox News anchor "mis-read" the teleprompter. I'd be curious to know whether or not the blogger posted Fox News's correction, if any.

So, you've proved my point that no media outlet is reliable. And if your post is the best example of alleged Fox News bias you can come up with, well it falls painfully short.

And no use trying to bait me into a debate over what "torture" is. If you think waterboarding is torture compared to electrocution, crucifixion and pulling fingernails, then your points, and most of your posts are torture.

The Romans were trying to get Jesus to talk?

Rajah's picture

It's torture when it's taken out of the Spanish Inquisition playbook.

You're totally not getting the point. Everyone agrees terrorists are bad but that in no way justifies torture. The point is WE shouldn't be doing it. We're a country, I hope, that conducts itselve under the rule of law. WE signed the Geneva Convention so WE  must obey its rules. There's no point in debating wheather or not it's torture, that's a done deal. The only points I hear from the looney right are that it gives good information, which it doesn't, and the terrorists deserve it.

Listen to whoever you want! Maybe it will drown out the voices in your head or add to them...


Hubris's picture

Whatever word you use cannot make a deplorable act, not so. The point you are attempting to make is the "Lesser and Greater Evil" argument, which is valid but slightly crude. Have you ever read a book on torture methodology? It's got nothing, whatsoever to do with the pain, level of pain, or any physical injury. It's completely mental. Take a gander at "ClosetLand" with Alan Rickman and Madelaine Stowe and you'll have a clearer perspective. NAZI SS officials were often able to squeeze a confession out of someone without ever even administering pain. Today you can use radio and audio frequencies to disrupt a subjects sleep patterns and once they start feeling their mind slipping, start hard questioning(think of this method applied to a religous fanatic; He/She might think they were answering Allah.) Most importantly, with torture it is always the fear that makes people talk, not the pain.
There are effective, terrifying ways to interrogate while still following the parameters of the Geneva Convention. Cheers.

What is your point?

michael3b's picture

"They're bad, so we be bad, too...or else!"  ??

No shit, the Taliban are bad.  Do you really think that they are what this whole debacle in the mideast (which, by the way, has killed hundreds of thousands, including a few thousand Americans) is about?  Please.  Make sense, for Chrissakes. It is not a nutjob conspiracy theory to suggest that people will do whatever it takes to get what they want.

If you think for one second that the people who were running this show 2000-2008 (and I am no fan of the current crop) did not make use of the "mindset" of the time to get this fucking war rolling, then you are insane.  Perhaps they did have nothing to do with 9/11, but it is NOT outside the realm of possibility given the stakes.  They wanted war and they got it.  For someone as cynical as you are to not "follow the money" is hypocrisy at it's most glorious.


Before you dismiss it out of hand, check the sources cited by Rich.

Good luck with your American jihad.  You've got about as much chance of winning against a 15,000 year-old mindset by taking it on as your own as I do of putting out a building by setting myself on fire. 




I wanted to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

But George Bush had another idea.  He removed important forces from Afghanistan and sent them to Iraq.  Iraq never did anything to us and Sadam Hussein had no intention of getting in a war with the USA again. 

If Bush had stayed the course in Afghanistan, the Taliban would have been defeated by now.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Of course, the true reason they went into Afghanistan...

FearlessFreep's picture

...was to create a precedent for invading Iraq.

So Americans are better than terrorists.  Big triumph!


I wanted to go after Taiwan and Canada...

Wulfgar's picture





~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~


Human rights abuses...

Hubris's picture

The office of president is a civillian post, making the president answerable to his own crimes, be they ommissions of truth involving operations overseas, or the misuse of powers as commander in chief.
This is not a two party system any more. It's a bird with two right wings, flying in circles.


Hubris's picture

It certainly doesn't help when education channels are glorifying the Taliban in 'greatest warriors' type simulations (Taliban vs. Ira)
Essentially, Discovery and History channels have legitimized these two groups just to fulfill their own comic book "what if" fantasies of "Hulk vs Wolverine." Truthfully, we should have finished the job in Afghanistan and moved on to the Sudan, where there's actually been a genocide occurring for years.

What country are you talking about?

Coaster's picture

The Sudan is populated by Black people and they have no oil.  The chances of the U.S.A. going there to stop a genocide are pretty slim indeed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.