Thank you, President Obama, for 'MONTHS OF FIGHTING' to get the truth released to the public

[conservaphobe]

AND FOR CALLING TORTURE WHAT IT IS!

President Obama surprised many Americans on Friday when he said at a news conference that, in the wake of September 11, 2001, "We tortured some folks, we did some things that were contrary to our values."

Obama was discussing the CIA's admission that it had snooped on Senate aid computers, which he connected to the US national security community's overreaches after September 11. His comment took many by surprise because he used the T-word — torture — to describe Bush administration practices that for years were described with softened phrases like "enhanced interrogation methods." By using such a clear, charged word, and one that has real legal implications, Obama seemed to have done something very significant.

And that gets to the actual significance of his statement today. Obama has been pushing, for months, for the Senate Intelligence Committee to release its classified 6,300-page report on Bush-era interrogation programs. Intelligence agencies and some lawmakers have opposed releasing the document, which is known colloquially as the "torture report." But Obama has said that opening it up to the public would be crucial for understanding post-9/11 abuses.

After a few months of fighting, Obama got his way: the report could be released to the public as soon as next week. The report is the result of an extensive investigation of rendition, detention, and interrogation programs (sometimes called RDI) and people who have seen it describe it to reporters as showing "horrific, systemic, and widespread" abuses, according to the Daily Beast. It does not use the word torture — a word that can have enormous legal implications if used in such an official document. But Obama does.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/1/5960317/obama-has-been-calling-bush-era-interrogations-torture-for-years

[PoliticAverse]

1. Citing redactions, Feinstein delays release of report on CIA interrogations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025324877

[Vattel]

2. he calls it "torture" but makes no attempt to strengthen the relevant criminal laws against torture,

namely, the War Crimes Act and the Torture Act. Epic fail on Obama's part.

[conservaphobe]

4. Does he have the votes for that? nt

[Vattel]

6. He did when he first took office.

[conservaphobe]

8. Maybe, maybe not.

And political capital needs to be spent carefully

[Vattel]

10. lol

[AgingAmerican]

13. He didn't even bother trying to go after them

He spent his 'political capital' protecting the bankers and wall street.

[conservaphobe]

16. That is your perspective.

I am poor and have benefited a great deal from what people paint as negative.

[AgingAmerican]

21. You benefitted from the banks robbing the middle class?

How?

[mountain grammy]

44. Many of us have benefited from the ACA, which is where a lot of political capital was spent

back in 2009. I have a friend who is alive and well because she got medicaid in the expansion and had that checkup she had put off for years. Yes, we didn't get single payer, but we will, and what we have now has saved lives.

[cheapdate]

51. Was Nancy Pelosi aware of that?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. I think he simply needs to enforce them, no? nt

[Vattel]

9. He could try, but they are very poorly written,

and the War Crimes Act was weakened by the Military Commissions Act. They need to be made more precise and less ambiguous. Ted Kennedy tried to do that, but couldn't convince enough Senators to go along with him.

[msanthrope]

37. A quick read of our Constitution would reveal that it the Congress who makes laws---

A primer for you:

[rhett o rick]

38. Just can't pass up the snark. We all know who makes the laws and we all know that

the President has some influence on the Democrats in Congress.

[msanthrope]

52. It's not snark--it's CIVICS. nt

[rhett o rick]

53. Don't you mean Condescension? nm

[msanthrope]

54. It is condescending to make posts blaming the President for not doing the job of Congress. nt

[Vattel]

57. Don't be dense. The President pushes legislation all the time. Ever heard of Obamacare?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. ???

He should be putting people in jail.

[conservaphobe]

7. Just because something SHOULD happen doesn't mean it is a viable option. nt

[AgingAmerican]

12. Right

When you have the US ATTORNEY GENERAL at your beck and call, you've no power to go after criminals.

Oh, let me guess. He doesn't have the votes, right?

[conservaphobe]

15. He would have virtually no support from the American people.

And it would set a dangerous precedent that would lead to subsequent administrations taking political prisoners.

[AgingAmerican]

19. Right..

The middle class would of course side with the Banksters and Wall Street, correct? What a dangerous precedent it would set! The middle class would riot in the streets! Presidents would take political prisoners if the criminals who robbed us were ever brought to trial!! What was I thinking?

Batman, save us!!

ON a more serious note.....

[MannyGoldstein]

23. So,

the King President is above the law?

[Maven]

45. The precedent he's setting is far more dangerous

Which is that subsequent administrations can commit war crimes with impunity.

I don't know about you, but I want political leaders to fear the consequences of engaging in torture.

[Rex]

18. Yeah well facts make this crowd nervous.

As you can see how ridiculous they are about mild critique...but when Bush was in office it was all about being there to serve the POTUS. They sure do flip flop all over the place depending who is in office.

[rhett o rick]

55. Some times just making the effort sends the message. We we need to appologize to our

troops, our nation, the Iraqi people, and the world. Those responsible need to at the minimum be rebuked. I think if the President would have condemned the actions of the War Criminals in 2008, the American people would have appreciated it. After six years it will be tougher. If we pretend that it never happened, which sounds like what some here want, we will be accepting the war crimes and atrocities.

[Rex]

17. They are all patriots Manny, what is wrong with you!?

Maybe you forgot some here won't stand for criticism of the POTUS, but they darn can and will play CYA for the BFEE. Funny people they be.

[BainsBane]

11. Are people here pissed off because he mentioned the word torture?

Is that why they are again denouncing him? He was supposed to pretend it never happened, like Bush?

[conservaphobe]

14. I think they're exhausted from moving the goalposts around. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

24. I don't believe that a single member of DU believes that

Not one.

Right-wing trolls excepted.

[BainsBane]

25. Why then are people suddenly pissed off today?

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Maybe because the President won't enforce the law?

Or because the economy continues to be a disaster for most Americans?

Or because Israelis and Palestinians are both being murderous scoundrels?

Or because planes are getting blown out of the skies over Europe?

Or because the Executive branch of government is spying on Congress, and lying to them, with zero consequences? And slaughtering people around the world because FREEDOM, that's why?

Or because huge numbers of people spend more time in jail for smoking a joint than for laundering billions in drug cartel money?

[BainsBane]

34. Try to focus

What about torture? Why today? Is it because he told the truth rather than lying, as good President do--you know the kind whose administration's hemorrhaged 700,000 jobs a month rather than adding 200,000? Or is it as simple as the fact that is was on TeeVee, the great intellectual inspiration?

You need to get over this fantasy you have about American omnipotence. That you blame Obama for Putin's fuck up with that airliners and the Israel conflict is the sort of thing one expects from wing-nut conspiracy sites. The President is not our Daddy and we are not four year olds. Also, if you're suddenly pissed off that Americans are killing people in the name of freedom, you've figured it out some 60 years too late.

The OP is about torture. The question I posed to you is why are people suddenly upset with Obama today about torture? It would appear they are pissed off he said the word. If there is another explanation, provide it, but do try to keep on the subject.

[zeemike]

39. Well I will try to explain it like this.

What if the authorities admitted that a rape happened, and they knew who did it...but never arrested the guy...would admitting it was a rape be enough for you?
Well rape is no different than torture...both are the intentional infliction of pain and suffering on another for power.
And we don't say that she was a bad girl so the rape does not matter...and we don't make excuses like, well he got too excited and could not help himself...so it was rape so now get over it.

I am constantly amazed at how morality can be overlooked to protect a politician..

[rhett o rick]

40. Maybe because he apparently is dismissing our war crimes as " "We tortured some folks, we did some

things that were contrary to our values." We murdered a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi children with horrible instruments of death. We tortured people to death. War crimes were committed.

[BainsBane]

42. You'll have to forgive me

My not having television service and thus not cued in with the intellectual inspiration for the rest of the site, and I am still reading the transcript. Are you upset he mentioned it, or that he wasn't angry enough, that he didn't express the rage you feel?

As awful as the war was--and I agree--that was not a crime under international law. The crime was the torture. If we were signatories to the International Treaty, it is the torture that could be prosecutable, not the war itself. Your post above, however, seems to indicate you are more angered by Obama's discussion of it than the acts themselves. What am I missing?

[rhett o rick]

47. If you are asking if I am bitter, the answer is yes.

I don't know international law, but I won't believe propaganda that states that the only war crimes we committed were torture. Not that that isn't enough. We used cluster bombs, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and napalm in densely settled urban areas. Innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood. Seeking justice is too much to hope for, but strong condemnation isn't. I worry that the mild statement Pres Obama made will be the best we get.

[BainsBane]

49. Then it is the fact he didn't express the issue in the manner you wanted him to

Much like people are angry when an MSNBC hosts doesn't say what they want them to? I find the concept alien. Again, my background is very different so I have never seen a President who would speak for me, so I have never expected one to do so. I can't imagine getting angry because I didn't like the way he discussed an issue. I would think policy would be more important, but I understand that many here are far more concerned with what politicians say than anything else. This is the transcript:

And my hope is, is that this report reminds us once again that the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things are hard. And when we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line. And that needs to be -- that needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that, hopefully, we don't do it again in the future.

Seems a reasonable enough statement to me. However, if you only just figured out that this administration had decided to do nothing about prosecuting the Bush administration, you're catching on six years too late. I also become perplexed when outrage suddenly emerges over something most people--I thought anyone marginally interested--have known for a long time. Do I wish it were different? Absolutely. It will not be as long as we do not sign on to the International Criminal Court, however. There appears to be no prospect of that in our future. That, I hope you realize, requires congressional approval, as the Constitution requires for all treaties.

As for the larger issue of law regarding war crimes, I could well be wrong. If there are indictable crimes, I have no problem with prosecutions proceeding. However, that can't happen as long as we aren't signatories to the International Criminal court. However, since you have declared my view "propaganda," I expect you will provide evidence to show me that I am mistaken. It is highly uncivil to refer to someone with whom you disagree as engaging in propaganda. The civil thing to do is to say the person is mistaken and demonstrate why. However, I have noticed that you have a tendency to engage in name calling rather than provide actual evidence (for example, referring to me as a "centrist," in response to an analysis that was clearly Marxist in nature.) I can't help but thing that is because you lack the knowledge or initiative to find the necessary evidence, as your confused poll about "pardons" would suggest.

[rhett o rick]

56. I believe that the invasion of Iraq was illegal and a violation of US law and International Law.

I believe that this illegal act of aggression against a sovereign nation is a war crime. I believe that atrocities were committed by our troops acting in our behalf that would be considered war crimes. I believe that an inquiry would reveal these war crimes along with torture. We, as a nation, will not heal this wound by simply trying to minimize it and/or denying it.

I consider repeated attempts to minimize our involvement to clear our consciences or justify Pres Obama's refusal to appropriately acknowledge what we did, a sad statement for our nation. At a minimum, as a US citizen, I want an honest inquiry and an apology to our troops, our veterans, our citizens, our allies, the world, and not least the people of Iraq.

We know approx the numbers of dead, wounded, and displaced, but we don't hear about how much damage we did to the Iraq nation. We totally destroyed their infrastructure and any hope of them becoming democratic. We (I mean the international oil companies) ended up with their oil.

Now some may try to rationalize and minimize what I am saying by explaining that it's not technically illegal in this way or that. Well go for it. After all for some, rationalization is the key to happiness.

[BainsBane]

59. It is a war crime "but not technically illegal"?

If it is crime, there must be a legal basis. If the point is actual prosecution, there must be jurisdiction. What US law? Which international laws? How can international law apply if we aren't signatories to the ICC? How can prosecutions occur without a basis in law or jurisdiction?

You consider questions and discussion about how prosecutions should actually occur, and how we might actually WORK to bring that about, to be minimizing. Thus it is clear to me you are not even slightly interested in seeing anyone prosecuted. You want to emote, never bother to inform yourself even minimally about the laws or jurisdiction involved, and insult anyone who cares about the basis for actual prosecution more than optics as "minimizing."

The "technicalities' only matter is one actually cares about prosecuting war crimes. If the point is simply to complain and have your complaints validated, that is an easy goal to achieve. Just avoid conversing with anyone interested in knowledge, action, or reality. There are plenty around here who fit that description. I am not among them.

[Autumn]

20. If any American was surprised about that...

they have been hiding under rocks.

[Rex]

22. A stronger worded statement would have been nice.

Maybe something like, "they are all fired and if anyone does it again they will be fired to and prosecuted" but I've been told I am just wanting a pony so guess we stick with "look forward".

Hopefully the CIA can be controlled.

[BainsBane]

26. The torture wasn't limited to the CIA

The military was heavily involved in it. IIRC, some of those most concerned about it were in the CIA.

[Rex]

30. Well they worked hand in hand with the CIA and in 3rd world countries.

My wonder is what do we classify the people in Gitmo after all these years? Are we still torturing people...even at this very moment. What concerns me most is the POTUS always finds out after the fact...and there shouldn't be anymore after the facts. The CIA is notorious for living by that double standard.

Maybe it is time to ask if some of these redundant agencies can be pooled together...since they all seem to work behind the curtain together anyway.

[BainsBane]

36. I don't think we are

not systemically as we were under Bush. Obama issued executive orders related to that soon after entering office. Under Bush it was sanctioned by the White House. CIA agents and other US advisers have engaged in torture in the past. There are accounts from Central America of American nuns being tortured by Americans. So it could still be going on. The key difference was that it was official policy under Bush and actively encouraged by the White House.

[truebluegreen]

27. Regarding your last sentence, "Too Late."

Might have been too late the day they opened their doors, but it certainly is now.

[markpkessinger]

28. Meanwhile, he has full confidence in John Brennan

[QuestForSense]

48. I think that's the part that pisses people off.

Brennan lied, same as Clapper, but "folks" pushes the ear straight back to Dubya, "Yuh see? Them folks was under a lot of pressure." Brennan will stay put.

[Hekate]

32. Kudos to the POTUS.

[freshwest]

33. So glad Conyers' on the ballot. His research on the IW in the Congressional Record is stunning.

It laid the necessary groundwork for the prosecution of all the bad actors. Then came 2010 and we were held back. Now we need to get more Democrats to work with Obama to end the myths.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. I appreciate the sentiments, BUT

. . . I will save further accolades for when the President and his all-too-often feckless AG lay out a concrete plan for bringing the torturers to justice.

[rhett o rick]

41. I think what you saw today is all you are going to get. nm

[LuvLoogie]

43. Now don't get all sanctimonious...

It was just some folks.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

46. You're certainly batting 1000...

[flamingdem]

50. Appreciation for our embattled President

Like it or not "tortured some folks" will go down in history

[nilesobek]

58. Good going President Obama!

The GOP, whose name is ruined forever, is on the edge of their seats waiting to see if Obama is truly going to reveal every evil thing they have done.

Its like this, "Republican congress, you BETTER play ball or maybe President Obama starts talking again."