"My Head Exploded When Obama Sanctimoniously Said, 'We Tortured Some Folks'"

[WilliamPitt]

My Head Exploded When Obama Sanctimoniously Said, "We Tortured Some Folks"
By Akira Watts
BuzzFlash | Commentary

Tuesday 05 August 2014

(snip)

It's not simply that "folks" manages to conflate the man who had a major role in planning the September 11th attacks with a guy unlucky enough to get scooped off a street. And it's not simply that "folks" builds on the foundation of vagueness laid by "some." I mean, "folks" just seems like a small number of people. You wouldn't think "look at all those folks" if you saw a stadium filled with people. Both of those points are troubling, but they don't quite get at the skin-crawling creepiness of the phrase.

It's the juxtaposition of the starkness of the first two words with this middle American jolliness that I find hard to stomach. It tries to soften the blow in an utterly tone-deaf fashion. It doesn't work. It doesn't sound like anything an actual human being would ever say, unless it was immediately followed by said human being unhinging its jaw and swallowing you whole.

But hey – at least that wasn't the whole speech, right? Surely that was just a minor glitch. Well, sort of. There was the acknowledgement that, what with torturing folks and all, a line was crossed. Not really the sort of statement that should be necessary; once torture is on the table, any lines there may be have pretty much been carpet bombed out of existence. Never mind that, Obama saying that a line had been crossed was a nice gesture.

So what are we going to do about it? Start with what's been done in the past. "[O]ne of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report." Hmm. "Some." Neat. But never mind the past, the past is dead. What about the future. I mean, torture, right? Prosecutions, jail terms, further investigations – all of those are surely in the works?

Crickets.

And then this: "And it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and were real patriots." This is the point where my exploded head bursts into flames of rage. Let me get this straight. We tortured. A line was crossed. But we shouldn't be all sanctimonious because the people that did it were patriots and under a lot of pressure. Really?

OK. I get that, given that the droolers in Congress would probably object to Obama declaring Ronald Reagan our national saint, even pushing for prosecutions would be a tricky political sell. Understood. And I'm sure that Obama would rather not blow his political capital on the fight that would ensue, since I just know he's saving all that capital up for something super special that will totally knock our socks off. But, after taking prosecutions or any other meaningful response off the table, was there really any need to make excuses for the people who carried out torture? Or, by extension, for those higher up who ordered and justified it?

Don't get sanctimonious? They were under pressure? They're all good patriots? Are you kidding me?

This is America. Go ahead, violate the Geneva Convention. You're under stress and you're all just wonderful, patriotic people. And after it's all over, we'll acknowledge what you did in a way that does its damndest to minimize the stark horror of what we have become.

We're America and we tortured some folks.

The rest: http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/obama-sancitmoniously-said-we-tortured-some-folks

[m-lekktor]

1. I read this elsewhere already. good stuff!

[azureblue]

202. I'm trying to imagine what your head did

I'm trying to imagine what your head did when Cheney and Bush said "we don't torture"... And they did. But Obama doesn't.

[sabrina 1]

225. You don't need to try to 'imagine' what Democrats did when Cheney/Bush

were exposed as torturers. Democrats were and have remained OUTRAGED, also to give credit where it is due, so were many others. We demanded that the War Criminals be held accountable.

We asked for the Impeachment of Bush, and actually thought there was a chance of doing so back then.

Civil Rights orgs, ever heard of the ACLU by any chance, among others have been working tirelessly to try to get this massive War Crime addressed.

We worked to get Dems elected, hoping that if we succeeded the War Criminal Torturers, Cheney/Bush/Rummy who sat in on torture sessions btw, would finally be brought to justice.

WE SUCCEEDED. We threw the party that supported the Torturers out of the House, the Senate and the WH.

You asked where were we?? THAT is where we were, we WON, only to be told there would be no prosecutions of War Criminal Torturers.

I hope that helps answer your question. Mine is, where were YOU?

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. rec!

[doxydad]

3. Poor choice..

of words.

[LondonReign2]

9. Poor choice of actions, too

As in none.

[doxydad]

12. What was it you would have Obama do?

This was Cheney's shitty mess...and Obama STILL has his hands tied by the Neo-hawks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. Simple ...

Direct the AG to arrest Cheney and Bush and everyone else we think was associated with the torture, toss them into GITMO and then ... well ...



I suspect that would end with, "sit a back and watch on government go

Before anyone asserts that I support torture (or any inhumane act, including all forms of war ... for whatever reason - because I don't), let me just say, Nothing in real life is as simple as typing on the internet.

[LondonReign2]

84. This argument that it is too hard

or would have dire consequences on our government...you're now arguing that the President and other elected officials are above the law. If not for torture, when would you hold them responsible?

And what is to prevent this from happening again? Obama "hopes" it doesn't...but if there are no repercussions, no prosecutions, and if in fact we are scolded not to be "too sanctimonious" towards those doing the torturing, what exactly is to prevent this from occurring again?

[truedelphi]

104. Totally agree with you in your statements. Just yesterday, I

Finished reading a book on the Nuremberg Trials and their implicit directions to people in the future, (which would, of course, be us.)

One of the main directing philosophies in terms of even having these trials was to demonstrate to the world and for history that once a nation loses its moral compass, it will implode. And that was the case in Germany. It is a moral rule - when you as a people no longer have the inherent ability to see that right is right and wrong is wrong, that nation will not last very long.

There are so many parallels between what took place in Germany and what is happening here. Total censorship of certain ideas, for instance. Just as you were not able to question certain things in Germany, (for instance, everyone there knew that they should avoid asking where and what happened to their Jewish neighbors, without an actual memo being sent out to the citizens at large,) so too must an individual avoid raising certain issues in our society.

[chervilant]

224. Well stated:

One of the main directing philosophies in terms of even having these trials was to demonstrate to the world and for history that once a nation loses its moral compass, it will implode. And that was the case in Germany. It is a moral rule - when you as a people no longer have the inherent ability to see that right is right and wrong is wrong, that nation will not last very long.

Once a nation loses its moral compass... At present, I think this also applies to Israel.

I am heartsick at the atrocities our species visits upon our selves, and our planet.

[truedelphi]

105. It is not really simple at all.There is a choice that has to be made.

Either we prosecute war criminals from the Bush/Cheney era, and watch the government "go boom," or we accept that it okay to allow our nation to follow the principles of hyenas and jackals and then we end up with a fate similar to that suffered by the people of the Third Reich.

Without a moral compass, a society goes to ruin. Obama's choice was to watch the government go boom, or else stand by and let society go to ruin. He chose to let society become a desolate wilderness, from which total fascism is assuredly on its way.

[BeyondGeography]

134. Lol...the only thing you left out is

"Where are the calf's brains marinated in truffle-soaked baby duck's testicles?"

Frank Schaeffer saw you and your crowd coming a long time ago:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/this-good-friday-let-us-n_b_92645.html

[BrotherIvan]

164. Yes, let's all accept TORTURE so Obama doesn't look bad

Saying mean things about President Obama is the absolute WORST!

[truedelphi]

171. Hi Brother Ivan.

Good to see you weigh in.

[BrotherIvan]

194. Thanks

But I might not be here for long, my head is on danger level 5. I thought that surely, cheerleaders couldn't defend torture. They would just stay mum, knowing there's not much to do now that tptb have decided. But nope.

[BeyondGeography]

190. Oh, he doesn't just look bad

He chose to let society become a desolate wilderness, from which total fascism is assuredly on its way.

Thanks, Obama.

[delete_bush]

168. "Calf's brains marinated

in truffle-soaked baby duck's testicles"

Sounds yummy. Anthony Bourdain? Andrew Zimmer?

Great line, is this original to you?

[BeyondGeography]

170. No, alas

It's Schaeffer's; a keeper. Link is in the post.

[truedelphi]

172. Who the hell is Frank Schaeffer? And Huffington loads a person's computer up

With endless cookies and ad ware trackers. Often going there ends up paralyzing my machine.

In any case, the impeccable logic of the many decent authors of "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code" have forced me to examine our "modern society" in light of what the Nazis did, and what the response to them has been. Every civilized nation found the Nazis deplorable. Again and again, during the 1950's and 1960's, students across the globe were taught that basic human values are important, and that when those values are tossed aside, then tragedy results.

Israelis believe themselves to be so special that they can deny the reality of their occupying, by force, the land inhabited by Palestinians. And for decades, the Israeli people have refused to accept that maybe a people that has been shoved aside, and had to watch their property seized, their relatives killed, and their way of governance wrenched away from them, and until finally they have endured enough injustices that the piper must be paid. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, when they do act out, they have the equivalent of fire crackers against tons of TNT.

[m-lekktor]

192. he's a raving loon whose dad used to be a religious right leader

ole frankie boy denounced his dad and his fundie ways and became the hardest of hardcore obama followers. he likes to screech hysterically at people for criticizing obama. obama supporters adore him for that reason but he is truly nuts still.

[truedelphi]

244. Thanks for the explanation. Glad I saved my computer the extra cookies

But on a few moments of weakness I almost ventured over there.

I don't really like Huffington Post, as the writers get little if any pay (except maybe for the celebrities that write)

I don't like the values of that. Ariana got millions with the sale of her site, yet she still refused to pay the writers.

[bobduca]

191. "You and your crowd" not divisive at all

ffs

[chervilant]

226. Best-selling author?

So, his misplaced modifier is likely meant to be folksy? Or ironic? But, I digress...

There IS a choice to be made. All the excuses and rationales in the world will not change the choice Obama has made.

[cui bono]

167. How difficult do you think it would have been for Obama to not say what he said?

To not minimize the torture? To not talk down to those of us who believe in upholding the law?

[erronis]

174. Restated: How easy it was to say what he said

(I'm thinking I agree with you.)

To minimize the torture, to talk down to those of us...

My illogical brain becomes quickly wrapped around the maypole with so many nots, so many negatives.

Could he have said "Yes, we admit we tortured people." - not "just some folks"? Of course he could have.

Did his speechspinners allow him to come right out and say that the USofA is a nation condoning torture? No, of course not.

Does anyone in this world believe that powerful nations (and powerful local officials) follow the rule of international law? Of course not.

Is this sanctimonius country above the laws of the rest of the world? No. But their breaking of these laws will eventually haunt them and their "coalition of the willing". We will pay the price for waging unholy/ungodly/inhumane war against anyone that isn't "with us."

[Akira Watts]

23. Not make excuses

I get that Obama's unlikely to be able to pull off prosecutions of those involved. What I'd have him do, though, is at the very fucking least, not minimize torture with folksy phrasing and a finger shaking admonition to not get sanctimonious.

[doxydad]

37. Yeah..but...

He has already sent his minions to say that he poorly phrased it. he did. That being said, move on......he's human he will make mistakes.

[Akira Watts]

44. Mistakes

Were I in a charitable mood, I'd accept that "we tortured some folks" was poor phrasing. The warning to not be sanctimonious? Don't really think poor phrasing covers it.

[2banon]

85. Hear, Here!

my thoughts exactly. have to say, that my head DID explode when he said "we tortured some folks" .. I don't know how it was possible for my head to explode yet again after he warned us not to be "sanctimonious"? But it did happen again.

Even though I was not surprised in the least (at this point) that they were going to be given a pass with honors.

[BrotherIvan]

86. We "tortured" some folks, move on

This must be a blind spot, the need to defend the indefensible. You don't have to, as Obama chose this course of action all on his own. It is a mark of shame to have one administration commit war crimes and the next try to actively keep the international community from prosecuting those crimes. No reams of excuses can take the stain away.

[CrispyQ]

116. This president is known for his great speeches, his command of the language.

This was not a poor choice of words, but a deliberate attempt to minimize the admitting to torture & to try to shut up anyone who disagrees with how it was & is being handled. Which is not at all.

What a great way to fire up the base for the mid-terms.

[Distant Quasar]

34. Not make excuses for torturers, maybe?

And perhaps also refrain from smearing those who point out that torture is a war crime?

If Obama won't do anything to enforce the law, he should at least have the decency to remain silent.

[LondonReign2]

89. +1

Calling people out as being "too sanctimonious" about torturers? Unreal

[azureblue]

51. True

i doubt anyone here can describe (outside of their own fantasies) how the process of arresting Cheney, Bush, etc., works, and how a successful trial would be conducted. Especially if President Obama has to work with the GOP throwing blocks in front of him at every step. You know they would drop whatever they are doing and en mass start working to tear Obama / Holder down the second he mentions prosecuting war crimes. Some of remember the prosecution of Nixon's team, and how hard it was to link back to the ones who called the shots. We do not want the fall guys, and finding others to take the blame, will be Cheney and Bush's defense.

I believe Cheney should be tried and jailed for war crimes. But I also believe that Obama realizes that the GOP will bring this country to its knees to stop the process. I cannot speak for the President, but my guess is he wisely understood that he had a choice to prosecute or repair this country, knowing that he could not do both, when he came into office. It came down to a choice of what is best for America, so prosecution for war crimes took a back seat. I note that Bush still is in hiding and Cheney is slowly hoisting himself by his own petard, by coming out and making statements. Any criminal knows to shut up and keep your head down, if you want to get away with something, but Cheney is too prideful to do that. He will eventually say something that will be incriminating, and that will be the open door to begin prosecutions.

[bigtree]

66. why was there a need for Ford to pardon Nixon?

. . . at that, for all federal crimes that he "committed or may have committed or taken part in" while in office?


here's one perspective:

This is a memorandum prepared for the Watergate Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworksi, on the day Richard Nixon resigned the presidency.

(the decision was reportedly made by Ford without asking the advice of the Watergate special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who had the legal responsibility to prosecute the case. NYT)

TO: Leon Jaworski, Special Prosecutor
DATE: August 9, 1974
FROM: Carl B Feldbaum & Peter M. Kreindler
SUBJECT: Factors to be Considered in Deciding Whether to Prosecute Richard M. Nixon for Obstruction of Justice

[Demit]

227. Bush in hiding? He's out there giving awards to Derek Jeter. There's talk of him becoming

the next MLB Commissioner. Cheney gets as much media attention & editorial space as he wants.

And who's going to be there listening when Cheney "says something incriminating"? The media? The Attorney General of THIS president? The next president? Is Hillary Clinton going to see that "open door" to prosecutions?

Obama closed that door. His sympathy to the 'patriots' who had a hard job to do, and his finger-wagging at those of us who are so SANCTIMONIOUS as to believe torture is abhorrent closed that door.

[bigtree]

56. how are 'neo-hawks' tying the Justice Dept.'s hands?

. . . and let's assume that the Justice Dept.'s hands are tied (not actually tied (like countless held without charges indefinitely and interrogated, tortured in many many cases, I believe), but lacking the political will from the top levels of our government to persist) - we should at least recognize that the White House has been virtually silent on urging Congress to move beyond the President's operationally ephemeral executive order banning 'some' tortures and has neglected to push and fight for permanent and expansive changes in the actual law.

We should also take note that the President's brief response to reporters didn't contain any counsel or any indication that he wanted Congress to do anything more than submit the report to his office so that he and the actual agency that is subject to the findings in the investigation report can edit the 'executive summary' that is to be the only part of the report that Americans are allowed to see.

It's not just that there hasn't been any sign or word or leak from the WH or it's offices that there should be any legislative move to address the tortures and the offenders described in the findings, there was actually an attempt to justify the acts.

What does the President (and Congress) intend for Americans to do with the report? At first blush, it appears that they intend for the revelations and admissions to serve in place of actually doing something about them.

Folks out here in America can genuflect at the mention of the word 'torture' by Barack Obama (no matter that he's publicly used the word twice to describe the abuses), and they will be allowed to glance over a compromised summary of acts, and, I presume, look at the perps identified, and reflect on, as the President and others surely will urge, the "tough job" they were "pressured" to do by some 'folks' who were so "afraid" that they forgot or neglected to follow the law and even the procedures and regulations outlined in their operational manuals out of "patriotism."

It's just awful; it's outrageous; sickening to the pit of my stomach that this is the response from the man who achieved that office with the votes and support of many of us who believed his election would repudiate the Bush-era justifications, excuses, rationalizations, and lies.

There is nothing 'tying the President's hands' outside of politics - or even some sort of self-defense of his own prerogatives, intentions, or actions.

If there isn't a firm and unequivocal response forthcoming from the President, he will rightly be regarded as an accomplice to the absolute dearth of accountability for the past acts. There will be no 'taking responsibility' as a nation or otherwise for the acts he correctly defines as torture.

As the three former CIA directors and other Bush administration perps who oversaw and committed the offenses intended - as they were allowed to work hand-in-hand with their former protege', who runs the agency right now, to edit and work to rebut the charges and findings in the Senate Intelligence Committee's report - there will be no actual accountability behind a static and summary release of information and conclusions that were already apparent and in evidence for years; not if that release isn't accompanied by a stern and forceful demand from the highest levels of our government and legislature to change the law or insist on prosecutions.


more:
Intel Cmte. member on WH torture report redactions: Try reading novel with 15% of words blacked-out

What is the point in a multi-year investigation of torture practices of the Bush administration?

Let's talk a little more about why the CIA was 'spying' on the Senate Intelligence Committee

[BrotherIvan]

92. Great post, but it made me sick to read it

The situation is sickening, and the rush to try to paint Obama, who is spearheading this as totally helpless is even more sickening. What have we become?

[Scuba]

223. A lack of political will has long been the bane of this Administration. Now a lack of ...

... political will has destroyed any semblance of principle the Democratic Party - and our nation - ever had.

[alarimer]

74. Admit unequivocally that it wrong and that they were not "just doing their jobs"

It was wrong. Full Stop.

And that the people who engaged in torture should at least be fired, not given a low mark on their performance evaluation.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

146. But they're not even getting a low mark. They're being called

patriots who were working hard and did what they had to do. Sounds like at least a B+ to me.

[LondonReign2]

80. Oh, I don't know

Hold those responsible for breaking international laws responsible for their actions?

[BrotherIvan]

83. The same "helpless" excuse

The Obama Administration actively worked to stop all prosecutions abroad. They defended the BFFE.

One of the little reported details from the latest batch of Wikileaks material are cables showing that the Obama Administration worked hard behind the scenes not only to prevent any investigation of torture in the United States but shutdown efforts abroad to enforce the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. This includes threatening the Spanish that, if they did not derail a judicial investigation, it would have serious consequences in bilateral relations.

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/12/02/wikileaks-obama-administration-secretly-worked-to-prevent-prosecution-of-war-crimes-by-the-bush-administration/

Anyone who pushes the meme that the Administration is completely powerless as it is in anything bad (but totally responsible for all things good!) is creating fairy tales.

[Welibs]

94. Obama's hands are NOT tied. He can do whatever he wants to do and frankly, he is required by law

to prosecute anyone that engages in torture! If he can use his executive super-powers to reverse SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling he can use them to prosecute
Bushco war criminals. He could also use them to repeal austerity and sequestration but he won't, because he doesn't want to.

Nancy Pelosi said last year that Dems made a deal with Republicans not to prosecute them. If torture is illegal than making a deal with the perpetrators not to prosecute isn't legal either.

http://www.salon.com/2009/01/18/prosecutions_2/

[derby378]

136. Well, DUH

Prosecute the hell outta them anyway.

[rhett o rick]

140. I would start prosecuting those that physically did the torturing and work up the line.

If the tortures get prosecuted, then maybe others in similar circumstances will refuse to "just follow orders". You have to be a sick individual to torture people, even "just following orders."

[CubicleGuy]

77. If there is a 9/11...

... then all is permitted.

[Enthusiast]

120. That's why they pulled

911 to begin with. Bush v Gore, 911, the stolen presidential election of 2004 and the great heist of 2008 were all part of the scheme. It's no conspiracy theory if it's true.

[GeorgeGist]

20. Deliberate choice of words.

[DeSwiss]

58. Even worse choice of a Presdient. n/t

[rhett o rick]

139. You better believe those words were chosen with the utmost care and they still failed. nm

[KoKo]

4. Yep...We are Americans and We Tortured Some Folks...Let's not get Sanctimonious

about all that.. Hey...those "folks" were patriots!

"Let's move along now....I have this Africa Summit I have to deal with ....but, it's mostly the Corporations who are going to be dealing with the 40 Reps. They are going to invest money there so they can do some real good stuff over there. They are even going to be able to make money as entrepreneurs doing APPs for their I-Phones so they can herd their cattle better. And, my buddy, Richard Wolf is going to be selling them Drones (that can see in the dark) so they can monitor their Poachers in the Game Preserves and keep their borders secure..." This is "good stuff."

[L0oniX]

33. +1 Preach it bro.

[dixiegrrrrl]

65. Besides, "we don't look back, we go forward"....remember?

Pelosi lost me when she said "Impeachment is off the table"

Obama sharpened my attention when he said "don't look back" as a policy of ignoring the Bush-wa wrongs.

he has since doubled down again and again in that vein.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

148. By those standards, no crime should ever be prosecuted. After all,

they're all in the past. It's nonsense. I'd love to see someone who committed a minor crime try to get off with that reasoning. Of course, steal a few billion and you're fine.

[Marr]

5. "Don't get sanctimonious" sounds a lot like "eat your vegetables".

Basically, 'shut up, little person'.

[sabrina 1]

8. Who is this 'we' who should not get all 'sanctimonious' about torture?

Does he expect the Far Right to do so? ANY Republican who so thoroughly supported all of it, does he think they might suddenly become Sanctimonious about torture?

And if he is not talking to THEM, then who? We are being told he was not talking to the 'Left' and anyone who thought so was imagining things.

I assume he is talking to people like me, and every other Civil Rights Org, who from day one, were outspoken against this country's torture program under the Cheney/Bush gang.

[ReRe]

31. He was talking to his base...

... i.e. us. It was a slap in the face just like that one back there when Rahm baby was COS at the WH. Or at least, that is sure what it felt like to me.

[sabrina 1]

36. I definitely got that impression also, but we are being told we are 'making stuff up'

by assuming he was talking to those who oppose torture which would be the Left. Thanks, looks like this what most people are getting from it.

[L0oniX]

32. He continues to throw the left under the bus as he has from the start.

IMO the Democratic party doesn't really want the left in their third way tent.

[CrispyQ]

121. They want our votes, though.

They know they can't win without us.

When they lose they blame us. When they win they tell us to shut up. The more often I vote for the lesser of two evils, the farther right the democratic party goes.

[grasswire]

62. to me, "sanctimonious" = "Get over it" (election 2000)

And that's what John Kerry told those of us who were battered by the theft of an election and an end run around the Constitution by the Bushies.

Obama's statement was an insult to Democrats. Not only did it excuse torture, but it removed a core Democratic principle from an issue that our candidates can campaign on to a liability.

Not the first time he's done that.

[sabrina 1]

71. There are some things even the most ardent supporter of any politician should not be

willing to overlook, or excuse, or try to explain. THIS is one of them. If opposing torture has not become 'sanctimonious' to the Democratic Party, we need to know. If what the President said is the thinking of the Dem Party, then we need a new party. So far I have not heard anything from other Democrats on what ought to be done now that we KNOW without a doubt, that war crimes were committed, but I am hoping we will be hearing from them soon.

[BrotherIvan]

95. +1

I've been told that since I think torture is unpardonable, I just want a pony. Or upthread, he's human, he makes mistakes, move on. I don't consider myself far-left, but if objecting to WAR CRIMES makes one part of the loony left then count me in.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

149. I'd like to know what he supposedly meant by the sanctimonious remark

if not exactly what you're saying he meant. And whatever "folks" were trying to say he meant yesterday in bigtree's thread does not make sense.

[woo me with science]

6. K&R

No adequate words for this.

[cwydro]

7. It sickened me.

But I long ago gave up on Obama.

[mindwalker_i]

10. The whole excuse souds like

"But we wuz Sceered!" But that really isn't why we tortured. Torture doesn't produce reliable results - it doesn't lead to reliable information - and I strongly suspect that the Bush administration knew that. No, we "did whatever it takes to keep America safe," and just like the TSA, it was ineffective for its stated purpose. However, it was very effective at its real purpose which was to to make all of us - citizens (or consumers) - feel like we were being protected.

Torture made us feel better.

[magical thyme]

21. torture did not make me feel better

nor did the unprovoked and illegal attack on Iraq make me feel safer.

All of it has made me further and further away. Just as this speechifying is driving me further and further away.

[mindwalker_i]

38. I can only speak for myself, but...

Torture didn't make me feel better either, in fact it further confirmed my deep distrust for Bush and the gang. When 9-11 happened, my first thoughts were that Bush would use it to push his fucked-up agenda through. Most people, however, were afraid and, unfortunately, easily manipulated. Generally, DU (I was here, lurking) was a bit ahead of the curve.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

150. It seemed to make Dick Cheney and his bros feel better, and,

after all, that's what's important.

[ballyhoo]

11. He's a nonperson to me now.

[CrispyQ]

13. When you look forward, you don't have to worry about the consequences of your own actions.

Half of America could care less about this issue, that whatever we do in the name of national security is okay.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. The Government Is Breaking the Law By Failing to Prosecute Torture

The Highest Law of the Land REQUIRES the Government Prosecute All of Those Who Authorized Torture … Including Bush, Cheney and Everyone Else Who Ordered It Or Failed to Take Steps to Stop It


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/us-government-breaking-law-failing-prosecute-authorized-torture.html

[IDemo]

17. But those who fail to prosecute are patriots under pressure.

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. The link gives a pretty good legal background

but I guess they weren't under pressure and not patriots and are being well, you know, what's that word?........

[IDemo]

25. Folksy?

[Ichingcarpenter]

40. priggish folks?

[questionseverything]

35. by not prosecuting he is committing obstruction of justice

and guaranteeing it will happen again ....if it really was stopped

[Ichingcarpenter]

106. he is committing obstruction of justice

Yes he is if he doesn't follow the law as noted in my post 14

[democrank]

15. President Obama`s statement on torture sickened me.

His "some folks" hogwash as it relates to those our government tortured is in the unfathomable category. It`s shameful.

"Some folks" is something I might say during a stroll through a Vermont State Fair when I see a handful of people eating fried dough. "Some folks really like fried dough."

Take another look above at that human being being dragged by a leash around his neck. He`s one of President Obama`s "folks" being handled by one of President Obama`s "patriots" which "Patriot" Dick Cheney and "Patriot" George Bush must be real happy about.

My values are what they are no matter who is president, so forgive me for not joining in the clap and nod crowd.

To say we have lost our moral authority on just about everything is an understatement.

[JEB]

16. Attempts to appease have become abetting.

[JEB]

18. Those "patriots" have done much damage to the USA.

"Patriot" is one of those words that is so loaded with bullshit that it just isn't safe to use.

[Ccarmona]

42. How is It

that the right has co-opted the word "Patriot" as its own? Even the right-wing talk channels on Sirius/XM are labeled "Sirius XM Patriot" & "Patriot Plus"
There is nothing Patriotic about anything the right does or stands for, yet they have cornered the word. The TP was the last driving force behind this, but their funding coming from the fascists like the Koch Brothers are so far removed from being Patriotic its revolting.

[chervilant]

228. So loaded...

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Samuel Johnson

They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king

Bob Dylan, Sweetheart Like You.

[gratuitous]

24. Good point about political capital

Yeah, something grand must be in the works to just let credible allegations of torture go by the boards. What should we do? How about an investigation? Appoint a special committee, stock it with five military officers, five Republican members of Congress, and 11 Democratic members of Congress. Subpoena records, call witnesses. Gather the information, and turn it over to the Attorney General's office with names, dates, orders, authorizations, the whole nine yards. Or, if the AG is too busy, let's go with a special prosecutor.

Let's show the world that the United States believes in its own Constitution and that even if it's inconvenient for some big shots, we will indeed adhere to our own laws and treaty obligations.

[stupidicus]

26. I can't help but think about the many in our prisons

far less deserving of living a life in one.

Sure, let's not be resentful or sanctimonious about who gets the get outta jail free card, or the related and equally damaging "the rule of law for thee, but no for me" speech. All the "under presssure" garbage may have some mitigating value in the sentencing phase, but serves as no defense for their guilt of the crime.

And given the "lawlessness" BHO is currently being sued for, one can't but wonder what kinda tune the repubs would be singing if this was his "crime" as well. Is it only notta "crime" when a white pres is in responsible charge of it, like real or imaginary excessive EO use?

From everything I've read I'm not sure that the depths of the dumbasshood to which he's sunk has been adequately plumbed, but please be on the ready for the next time he speaks out on the inequalities in our criminal justice system. He's decided for many reasons no doubt, that the lid on this Pandora's Box can be kept off and the evils unleashed tamed, and that Justice can be served in this case alone without the closure only prosecutions can bring.

It's a big butterfly with many a deleterious effect that time will inevitably reveal. I'd ask whether the failure to criminally prosecute Nixon made the madness of rightwingnuttery better or worse in this country, and what good we can expect outta decisions and rhetoric like this that only serve as far as I can tell, to embolden that enemy.

Mr "Nth dimensional chess player" in this case either has the foresight of an earthworm, or is in the service of that enemy. He's certainly no friend of the "rule of law" and the justice it provides. Obviously all that is just for us "little people".

[truedelphi]

236. Well, President Obama appointed

Eric Holder to be the top man at the Justice Department, and that appointment tells a person that the President is either:

One) CIA

or
Two) he is a puppet of the high and mighty.

So ask yourself, who is Mr Holder and why did he get to become Number One at DoJ?

Holder was the "go between" guy between Bill Clinton and financial criminal extraordinaire, Marc Rich. Rich received a Presidential pardon from Clinton and Holder was offered to have a Big Big Prize, some day in the future. That day in the future came shortly after Barack's election, when Holder secured the DoJ appointment.

[stupidicus]

239. yep, just one big happy family

ain't they?

for the readers http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/07/02/marc_rich_presidential_pardon_how_eric_holder_facilitated_the_most_unjust.html

[truedelphi]

240. Tnhanks for the link.

Great reporting by that writer, and apparently he is tackling the subject of Aaron Schwartz as well.

[stupidicus]

241. you're welcome

my disappointment with BHO started with his first appointment, and I'd bet many of the people in Chicago know exactly why by now.

[JamesMac]

27. Lawless in America

Here is what really galls me. Obama has had time to think this through, to measure his words, to assess the evidence, to weigh the pros and cons and to have it vetted by PR people. It didn't work. This is tantamount to dismissing a girl's rape as "boys will be boys."

Despicable.

Moreover, he has had time to weigh the 9/11 evidence, to weigh the NSA surveillance program, to weigh the use of drones and to review the outing of Valerie Plame. And done nothing.

At least I can write off Bush as a zealous idiot who was lead down his twisted merry path by people possibly more evil than him. But, I know this. Obama is no idiot.

At least with Bush we got what I knew we would get when he was placed in office. My hopes with Obama were so high.

So, which is worse? A zealous idiot or an informed professor of law? It all seems so much the same to me now.

[L0oniX]

30. The government political puppet show is entertainment for the ruling corporations and 1%.

[truedelphi]

243. Can't say I disagree in the slightest with what you are writing.

And welcome to DU.

[Corruption Inc]

28. The really sickening thing is the political sychophants whom accept it

Of course, they are the very same people whom want to censor everything.

People wonder how totalitarian states come into existence while acting and believing in the exact things that cause such historical monstrosities.

Some people say these are interesting times we live in but others like me realize that we are living in an era of corruption, corruption of both society and culture.

[L0oniX]

29. ^this^

[Amonester]

41. Interesting times we live in, as I came to the conclusion that nothing will get better, ever.

Humans, as a whole (of which species I am one), are like one of the Earth's cancer, and the planet is actually in the process of healing itself from that small disease, like it did for the dinos earlier (except for birds & reptiles).

So I don't expect anything will ever get better, but only worse, and every new day, I find myself being more spot on than the day before.

I am so glad I decided not to procreate decades ago just for those reasons. I don't feel guilty for it.

[chervilant]

229. Yeppers...

Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" was the impetus for me. No children, no worrying about how abysmal would be their lives among these hedonistic Sheeple, scrounging for ever-disappearing and grossly polluted scraps...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. The reason that the monsters aren't being tried is that too many Democrats signed off on it.

[Laughing Mirror]

67. That's exactly the reason

Plain as dirt.

[johnlucas]

111. Flat Truth. Plain Spoken.

All the juvenile "Republicans are Bad Guys, Democrats are Good Guys" stuff goes right out the window when you put the truth out there plain like that.

Yeah the Republicans are the bad guys but what does that make YOU Democrats when you go along with them?
The Democrats become the bad guys too.

Sad fact is that Obama did his speech with the anti-war crowd because he wasn't in national office yet.
He was just an Illinois State Senator then.
If he WAS a U.S. Senator at the time, I bet money he would have voted just the same as Hillary did.
I bet money he woulda went along with all the rah-rah that was going on back then.

That's why I'm not too attached to these labels of Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Green, whatever.
I care about your actions.

The Obama administration has proven to me once & for all that you will NEVER get a President for the regular people, for the 99%.
You'll NEVER get someone at that stage of government to be for the common people.
The political class protects their own. It's basic human social group theory. Birds of feather flock together.

The best we can do when voting for those guys is to find someone who we can bend more our way then the other.
Movements change the country not politicians.
Politicians jump on the bandwagon when something popular is going through & sign off on it.
If enough of a population shows their dissatisfaction, the ruler may eventually have no one to rule over.
One vs. Millions is bad odds.

Sure they could fight & wage war on those millions but then that GUARANTEES that the millions know you are against them & they will eventually find a way to depose you.
Smarter rulers concede prizes to keep their power.
You can rule with an iron fist but just don't let it get rusty or you end up like Caesar Nick from Russia.

The Democratic Party is a tool for this coalition of people looking for fairness & progress to USE.
We control IT. It doesn't control US.
Don't expect much from the party under its own right or you will be disappointed.
We have to manipulate the people in that organization to do what we want them to do.
The Democrats ain't the good guys either. They're just the guys we can bend easier.
The more people who keep that in mind the more they will know how to better deal with the world of politics.

John Lucas

[Octafish]

43. Tortured children, too.

Folks sounds "adult," like "My folks told me to get a haircut."

[questionseverything]

78. they raped children in front of their "folks"

http://generalstrikeusa.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/30-kinds-of-approved-torture-used-by-the-c-i-a/

this can not stand or we can never get back

[BrotherIvan]

101. I am going to link to your post from now on.

Anyone who thinks we should "move on" needs to look at that page. How on earth could anyone excuse it? How?

[questionseverything]

102. we can't

beating,raping children,stuffing them in dark boxes with vermin,starving them....it just can not stand

[BrotherIvan]

103. It was even more horrifying than I knew

And it brought it all home to me. I urge you to make it an OP or to partner with a longtime DUer to help you (it will get more hits that way). People need to be hit with the reality of just what we're talking about before they dismiss it. If one has the courage to look at your link and then come back and say, "Oh well, move on" then I will stop screaming at them because that person is a sociopath.

But this is what happens all the time on DU. The cheerleaders must have an alert any time the word Obama is used because they swarm those threads making sure to derail all criticism or discussion. "What could he do? The wingers made him do it? Your'e a racist!" Happens all the time. One article discussing a policy issue invokes His name: swarm. Same day, same discussion, but his name specifically is not used and they don't show up. Defending Obama from all criticism is the most important thing, not advocating for good policy, not working against bad, even to the point of trying to gaslight torture. Torture.

We should be working together, to condemn these acts as one loud voice as we did under Bush. As I said to another poster where I just linked to your comment, it is showing that Democrats are as big of hypocrites as Republicans.

[TeeYiYi]

109. Deja Vu...

...back to 2003 DU and the endless Lynndie England show:



Gag. Disgraceful. I haven't forgotten and I never will. I don't know how she can look in the mirror or even hold her head up.

Just one of the torture 'folks'...

NSFW:

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc51.2009/TortureDocumentaries/pixTortureDocs/SOPpix/5prisoners/lyndmasturb. jpg

http://hipsterracist.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/abu-ghraib-lyndie-english. jpg

http://image1.caixin.com/2013-03-20/1363751426600584_840_560. jpg

(close the space between the dot and jpg)

TYY

[CrispyQ]

112. "Battle not with monsters lest ye become one."

America is a monster.

Skinning?

That site is deeply disturbing.

[SMC22307]

233. Jesus Christ, I feel sick. Those patriots don't look afraid to me.

Perhaps DU's resident loudmouth will show up to enlighten us as to the reasons those *folks* tortured, so *hopefully* *we* won't do it again.

Spring forward, and all.

[OnyxCollie]

88. These "patriots" were just doing their job.

They did their job so well that one of their customers slammed his head against a wall repeatedly to show his appreciation of their efforts.

One of youngest Guantánamo prisoner released
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=4282

Nineteen-year-old Mohamed Jawad has set foot in Afghanistan after seven years in detention making him one of the youngest prisoners to be released from Guantánamo. He is set to sue the US Government in the next couple of months for inhumane treatment and torture in addition to being a minor in detention.

~snip~

Jawad claims his captors tortured him and other prisoners, deprived them of food and sleep. He has described having his hands tied behind his back and being forced to eat by bending over and putting his mouth into a plate of food. He received substantial abuse, including the ‘frequent flier’ treatment which is a form of torture where the victim is shifted from cell to cell. Mohamed was shifted through 152 locations in a week’s time, staying a maximum of 2 hours and 55 seconds in each location.

Government Seeks To Continue Detaining Mohammed Jawad At Guantánamo Despite Lack Of Evidence
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/government-seeks-continue-detaining-mohammed-jawad-guantanamo-despite-lack-evidenc

NEW YORK – After admitting to a federal judge that Guantánamo detainee and American Civil Liberties Union client Mohammed Jawad had been tortured and illegally detained for nearly seven years, the Obama administration today asked the court for permission to continue to detain Jawad while it decides whether to bring a criminal case against him. The request, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes after U.S. District Court Judge Ellen S. Huvelle berated government lawyers last week for their inadequate case against Jawad.

Last fall, a military judge in Jawad's Guantánamo military commission proceeding threw out the bulk of the evidence against him finding that it was obtained through torture. Despite that ruling, the Obama administration continued to rely on those same statements in Jawad's habeas corpus challenge before Judge Huvelle until last week when it said it would no longer rely on that evidence. The Afghan Attorney General recently sent a letter to the U.S. government demanding Jawad's return and suggesting he was as young as 12 when he was captured in Afghanistan and illegally rendered from that country nearly seven years ago.

Following his 2002 arrest in Afghanistan for allegedly throwing a grenade at two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter, Jawad was subjected to repeated torture and other mistreatment and to a systematic program of harsh and highly coercive interrogations designed to break him physically and mentally. Jawad tried to commit suicide in his cell by slamming his head repeatedly against the wall.

[LordGlenconner]

45. What better way to show your anger over torture

Than blaming the guy that came along AFTER the torture for the torture itself.

[Akira Watts]

49. Blame

I wouldn't blame Obama for torture occurring under Bush. Nor do I necessarily blame him for not prosecuting those who carried out torture under Bush. But when he makes excuses for it? Yup. Going to go ahead and blame him for that one. Being patriotic and under a lot of stress is no excuse.

[LordGlenconner]

50. We hear what we want to hear

And interpret the way we want to interpret.

[Akira Watts]

59. Interpretation

"And it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and were real patriots."

You know my interpretation of the above. What's yours?

[LondonReign2]

98. What dishonesty

We are blaming Obama for not only failing to prosecute the torturers, but now condoning us for being "too sanctimonious" towards those that actually committed the torture. We are not blaming him for conducting the Bush era torture.

But of course you knew that, but it didn't play into your narrative of Obama as the persecuted victim here, so you took the dishonest route of claiming something totally different. Par for the course.

[sibelian]

213. If he doesn't do something about it, he IS responsible for future administrations

undertaking similar activities by not setting the precedent.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[EC]

46. I felt it was his way

of humanizing the victims.

[deurbano]

69. Then he is "humanizing" those doing the torturing, too:

"And it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and were real patriots."

To me, it seems more like "minimizing" the damage to the victims and and minimizing the culpability of the those who tortured (and those who authorized torture.. and those who facilitated torture... and those who ignored torture... and those who have wanted to forget and forgive without ever even attempting to pursue justice for the victims of that torture).

I'm glad he used the word "torture," though....but that just shows how terribly off-track the government, media (etc.) had gone-- that the use of the word "torture" to describe torture became so controversial.

[EC]

81. I just don't agree I guess.

I didn't see it as minimizing at all. He was simply stating that it's true WE tortured people. He didn't side step and say we tortured terrorists or insurgaents or any of the right wing terms for the people in Gitmo. I guess he could have said "people" but would all you guys be saying he "minimized" them then too?

[Akira Watts]

91. People

"We tortured people" wouldn't evoke the same level of cognitive dissonance. Better yet would be a simple "we tortured." Full stop. And avoiding the admonition about not being sanctimonious about would also be fucking neat.

[spanone]

47. k&r...

[Rex]

48. What gets me are the torture apologists on DU.

Nah not really, there is nothing they can say that will shock me anymore. They are Third Way all the way.

[BrotherIvan]

166. I have to admit, I'm shocked

Now they are putting their fingers in their ears and screaming, La La La La! trying to ride it out until people leave Obama alone! We're talking about torture, fucking torture of human beings in the most hideous manner, and people are still trying to derail about how we never loved him. I think my head is about to implode.

[truedelphi]

235. ^^^^^^^^^^ n/t

[Billy Budd]

52. Obama is scared of the CIA

and who can blame him....look what the CIA did to Hugo Chavez...

[Rex]

54. Look what they did to JFK.

The CIA is out of control. Maybe always has been.

[Billy Budd]

60. I swear I was going to say that about JFK

then settled for Hugo..

[Rex]

126. He wanted to get rid of the CIA and MIC.

Or at least find out just how out of control they already were. Ike warned us.

[ladjf]

53. He could have found a better word than "folks".

[snagglepuss]

55. That word used by pols makes my skin crawl. Who can forget Bush post 9-11 using folks to describe

the perpetrators.

[ReRe]

57. My stomach & heart did something strange...

I got that "slapped in the face" feeling again. Similar to betrayal, I guess.

Frankly, I did not recognize the man on the screen when he said those things. He had a John Wayne "swagger" about him... I think he even leaned on the podium once, on his elbow. I think he should go take a look at that oath he took, twice. The part that mentions "...enemies, foreign and domestic.

I don't think any other President has come this close to an opportunity to do the right thing once and for all. Yet he didn't do it. He rolled right over.

My stomach is doing that thing again.

[DeSwiss]

61. Why bother having a Constitution.....

...if you don't do what it says?

- Maybe a constitution isn't what we need......

K&R

[Contrary1]

68. The only part of the Constitution that many seem to care about is the 2nd Amendment.

Pick and choose what you adhere to. Invent your own interpretation.

Kind of like the Bible.

[DeSwiss]

72. And ashes to ashes......

...doesn't mean quite the same thing if you have copies of the corporate charter. You get to live in perpetuity.

- Or until a hostile takeover, whichever comes first.....

[OnyxCollie]

93. It's not a constitution; it's a "serving suggestion."

Like, "Put it on a plate, dear. You'll enjoy it more."

The legal-rational authority of the government is constrained by the rules prescribed in the national constitution. However, their interpretations and applications may lead to unintended results. In determining whether national constitutions affect a regime’s willingness to use repressive measures, Davenport (1996, p. 632, 633) laid out four ways of reading a national constitution: First, by seeing what rights are noted, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, it is expected that governments will recognize their importance and uphold these rights. This is the “constitutional promise” argument. Alternately, governments may see these rights as a threat to their existence and may choose to repress them. This is the “constitutional threat” argument.

Second, a government may decide that circumstances warrant a suspension of rights. Should a government grant itself the license to repress citizens’ rights during times of crisis, acknowledging how many rights are repressed and which rights in particular is useful in determining a regime’s commitment to non-repressive rule.

A third way to read a constitution concerns the suspension of multiple rights during states of emergency or martial law. This, too, may be interpreted as a constitutional promise argument or as a constitutional threat argument. By noting clauses of martial law, a regime may be seen as wanting to include suspension of rights into its “guiding principles” (Davenport, 1996, p. 632). Hence, a constitutional promise argument. The regime may see these rights as a threat, however, and feel necessary to suspend them, thereby producing a constitutional threat argument.

Finally, restrictions on states of emergency or martial law indicate the regime is concerned about regulating repressive behavior (constitutional promise) while a lack of restrictions indicates the regime may repress rights for as long as it wants (constitutional threat). According to Davenport (1996), the most common right mentioned in national constitutions was freedom of the press (77%), which also held the distinction of being the most frequently restricted (29%), followed closely by freedom of expression (13%). These rights were more likely to be mentioned than state of emergency clauses, and as such, regimes choosing to restrict these rights place curtailments on their ability to do so. Additionally, it was demonstrated that mentions of civil rights and the right to declare states of emergency resulted in lower rates of repression. Thus, it was determined that constitutions do affect the behavior of governments to repress civil rights. It is to be noted, however, that during exceptional circumstances, “when governments are ‘truly threatened,’" constitutions may be rendered immaterial (Davenport, 1996, p. 650).

Davenport, C. A. (1996). "Constitutional promises" and repressive reality: A cross-national time-series investigation of why political and civil liberties are suppressed. The Journal of Politics, 58(3), 627-654.

[whatchamacallit]

63. Another 9/11-related rabbit hole to avoid

Nothing will ever be done about these crimes for the same reason NO ONE was held accountable for any failure allowing 9/11. Prosecutions mean rigorous defenses, rigorous defenses mean access to classified information, classified information leads to a truth the American people must never know... Some threads cannot be pulled lest the tapestry unravel completely.

[Caretha]

197. Truth

I have no illusions anymore. It's hard, but I'm grateful I live my life that way now.

To have no expectations allows me not to be fretful or disappointed. I'm also able to focus more on what is important.

[Zen Democrat]

64. It's a German word meaning "People" with a connotation of "Common People" in the U.S.

In my family, "folks" is used interchangeably with "people." These folks, those folks, good folks, bad folks, etc. The word itself does not specifically mean family or friends or anything warm and fuzzy; e.g., There are some folks over there trying to cause trouble.

"We tortured some folks." Yes, we tortured some ordinary, regular, common folks. Not necessarily terrorists, or leaders of anything or anyone, just unfortunates caught up in a nightmare of our making. Good folks were undeniably tortured, along with some really bad folks. In either case, we were the "evildoers."

[90-percent]

70. Additionally

We also drone some folks to death now and then. But we do it with the deepest sense of patriotism.

-90% Jimmy

[LondonReign2]

99. Well don't get too sanctimonious about it

I mean, think of the pressure those patriots are under as they sit in their air-conditioned control room flying those drones around...

[Vattel]

73. Geez, mistakes happen. Move on.

Yes, during the Bush Administration we tortured some folks. In the American Indian Wars, we murdered some peeps. In Vietnam, we raped some Vietnamese gals. I understand why it happened. Folks were scared, folks were angry, folks were horny. We shouldn't be too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and were real patriots.

(sarcasm)

[Iggo]

97. .

[Caretha]

198. I'm sorry you

had to add &quot sarcasm)" to your post Vattel.

It was and is a lovely succinct post written by one who has a soul.

[Vattel]

200. Thanks for the compliment Caretha.

[Jackpine Radical]

75. Jeez, Will, what are you upset about?

It's the American Way.

(from Wikipedia)

William Laws Calley, Jr.[1] (born June 8, 1943) is a former United States U.S. Army officer found guilty of murdering 22 unarmed, innocent South Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War. After several reductions, Calley’s original sentence of life in prison was turned into an order of house arrest, but after three years, President Nixon reduced his sentence with a presidential pardon.
…
Calley claimed he was following the orders of his immediate superior, Captain Ernest Medina. Whether this order was actually given is disputed; Medina was acquitted of all charges relating to the incident at a separate trial in August 1971. Taking the witness stand, Calley, under the direct examination by his civilian defense lawyer George Latimer, claimed that on the previous day, his commanding officer, Captain Medina, made it clear that his unit was to move into the village and that everyone was to be shot for they all were Viet Cong. Twenty-one other members of Charlie Company also testified in Calley's defense, corroborating the orders.

[steve2470]

76. .........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025326267#post88

You just lost me, WilliamPitt. See ya.

[WilliamPitt]

79. Bye.

[chervilant]

230. So?

Ya think anyone's gonna lose sleep over this?

(Admitting the US 'tortured' "some folks" does not elevate this president...)

[Zorra]

82. Yeh, I know the feelin', for sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5336199

[spanone]

87. my question. when do the congressional hearings into torturegate start?

[PoliticAverse]

203. Sorry, Frank Church is dead and the Republicans are controlling the House at the moment. n/t

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 01:05 AM - Edit history (1)

[spanone]

212. yet they voted 54 times to deny healthcare for americans

[athenasatanjesus]

90. If he used strong wording then he would be considered Partisan.

The media could then spend weeks talking about how divisive Obama is, and supposed centrists could talk about how both parties are equally bad because they spend more time arguing than actually fixing anything.

[TheKentuckian]

100. So the fuck what?

[Caretha]

199. Really?

that is your response to war crimes?

OMFG

It might hurt someone's feelings?

[Iggo]

96. They were just following orders.

[phleshdef]

107. People upset over the word "folks" are about as disingenious as it gets.

I say folks all the time. Its part of my regular vocabulary and always has been. Get the fuck over it.

[WilliamPitt]

108. Yeah, that's the whole problem.

[phleshdef]

110. No, the real problem is, you, just like the right wingers who have been pissed off about the torture

....statement, are simply looking for more shit to get pissed off over, all the time, without fail. I know the statement bothers you for entirely different reasons than it does Liz Cheney, but at the end of the day, you both act the same.

[WilliamPitt]

113. So I'm Liz Cheney.

[phleshdef]

114. Well, you are both expressing disingenious outrage over the President stating a fact regarding...

...the coming torture report. I'm sure that's where the similarities end.

But hey, if calling me an "irredeemable fuckwit" makes you feel a little better, have at it bub. I'm chill, it doesn't bother me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. 'Fact'? You think it's a 'fact' that the torturers were 'real patriots'?

Or that it's a 'fact' that objecting to the torture is 'sanctimonious'?

Do you even understand what the word 'fact' means?

[phleshdef]

122. I think its a fact that "we tortured some folks".

I think its a fact that it was "wrong" as the President clearly stated.

I think its a fact that fear allowed us to go too far.

And I didn't vote for Obama to prosecute Bush.

[Akira Watts]

124. Facts

If it is so wrong, why offer the condescending warning not to be sanctimonious? Why offer the excuse that those who tortured were good patriotic people who were under stress? Why make excuses?

[muriel_volestrangler]

128. Then you ought to read beyond the titles of threads before responding to them

The OP is clearly more concerned about "the point where my exploded head bursts into flames of rage" - which was caused by "And it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and were real patriots."

Can you really live with yourself, if you rationalize torture away with "fear allowed us to go too far"? Do you truly think "I was frightened" is a suitable excuse for waterboarding, slicing open people's testicles (done for the West by Moroccans), and all the atrocities of Abu Ghraib? And surely you can't think that someone who takes torture more seriously that you is 'sanctimonious'. Or that patriotism is an excuse for torture.

And no, it's not a 'fact' "that fear allowed us to go too far". That's an opinion.

[phleshdef]

129. Get over yourself.

Lecturing me will get you nowhere.

The President basically said, lets not get holier than thou on people who were doing what they were basically told to do. That wasn't saying anything about the one's giving the orders (Bush/Cheney). If we ever had prosecuted anyone, it should've been the people giving the orders and that boat sailed back in 2007.

And yea, fear did allow us to go too far. I was there, I remember how the public in general was scared to death after 9/11 and allowed the government to have entirely too much leeway because of it. Bush won a second term because of it.

[Akira Watts]

131. Is "just following orders" back on the table as a defense now?

[phleshdef]

132. No. But it certainly changes the dynamic.

These weren't rogue agents torturing people because they had the bright idea to torture people. It was coming from the top and we all know it.

[rhett o rick]

137. Not only that but apparently if Bush can't be prosecuted then they all should get

a pass. No one should be held responsible. It's sick.

[phleshdef]

142. No one is ever going to be prosecuted for torture.

I accepted that ages ago. If it was gonna happen, Congress should've pursued it. I'm not really into Presidents going after their own predecessors.

[rhett o rick]

144. Well that's special that you've accepted it. For some of us it's harder than just rolling over.

It may well turn out that no one gets prosecuted, but it won't be for the lack of me trying. I don't dump my principles quite so easily.

[phleshdef]

152. I'm not dumping my principles. I'm just an adult who accepts that the world doesn't always work...

...the way that it should.

[sibelian]

216. Look at me everybody, I'm a torturer enabler!

It's all about acceptance!

It's the way things are. You know... BECAUSE.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. No, there's nothing about it being people "doing what they were basically told to do"

It was a question about John Brennan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president

He was deputy executive director of the CIA from March 2001, then Terrorist Threat Integration Center from 2003 to 2004, then director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Obama says he has full confidence in him, then brings in "our law enforcement and our national security teams", but doesn't say anything about them just doing what they were told. He is talking about the decisions they made.

You started this sub-thread with:

"People upset over the word "folks" are about as disingenious as it gets.

I say folks all the time. Its part of my regular vocabulary and always has been. Get the fuck over it. "

You're in no position to say "don't lecture me". You told us to get the fuck over it. No, we will not get the fuck over torture. You need lecturing.

[phleshdef]

143. I reject your lectures. Get the fuck over it.

And it was regarding more than John Brennan. He was talking about the people that actually carried out the actions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

147. Making things up won't help you convince anyone with a brain or conscience (nt)

[phleshdef]

153. WTF did I make up?

Now you're just talking to get the last word.

[sibelian]

217. la la la!

Fingers in ears!

[Caretha]

201. No one can lecture

someone who is incapable of learning.

So obviously you are not an intended recipient of lessons.

[sibelian]

215. Well you SHOULD have been voting for Obama to prosecute Bush, shouldn't you?

Because if you don't support the prosecution of war criminals then you're on the side of war criminals, aren't you?

[KamaAina]

130. ROFLMAO!!

[11 Bravo]

133. FYI Will: This post was alerted on - Jury results:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=inbox&view=1574993

(I was juror #4)

[rhett o rick]

138. We can't open that thread. nm

[WilliamPitt]

165. Can't read the link

[Warren Stupidity]

177. You need to cut'n'paste the jury results. The link is to your pm.

[rhett o rick]

145. So the "real problem" is Will? As if he is the only one with this opinion.

Maybe you didn't see this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025336796

Don't think Will is the problem.

And to equate Will's attitude towards the President with Liz Cheney's, is sadly laughable.

[phleshdef]

154. I'll throw you in that boat too. You folks are just looking for something to get pissed off about.

You don't really care if it merits it or not.

[rhett o rick]

156. If that makes life easier for you, feel free. Much easier than dealing with the truth.

Seems to me that some here that blindly support the president, have backed themselves into a corner. Finding themselves defending the rationalization and minimization of torture.

As far as being pissed off, I am pissed off that torturers from the actual people pouring the water to those that gave the orders are going to go Scott-free. I am pissed off that the President is ok with that. I am pissed off that there are people that call themselves "politically liberal" that are ok with the torturers going unpunished.

[phleshdef]

176. I'm not "okay" with it. I just accept reality.

If the American electorate wanted Bush/Cheney prosecuted for torture, they would've elected people that would've ran on that. Our country as a whole did not do that. So it is what it is.

[bobduca]

181. "I just accept reality." Quoth the Apologist for Real Reality-Based Reality

Some want to change reality...

[phleshdef]

182. Yea, a lot of people want things they will never have.

[bobduca]

185. Like justice

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 10:38 PM - Edit history (4)

on edit, specifically there will be no justice for those "folks" tortured and killed in the United States illegal black torture sites around the world, all done in your name with your tax dollars, by "patriots".

Fuck "patriots".

[rhett o rick]

209. And what do you want? Forgive and forget? nm

[rhett o rick]

207. And you understand "reality" while philosophers have been struggling with it for centuries.

Your "reality" is in your head.

[Warren Stupidity]

178. Are us folks in the same set of folks who are torture worthy?

Just curious.

[phleshdef]

179. No one is torture worthy.

Don't create arguments that I didn't make.

[sibelian]

218. Paging Dr Freud!

Here comes Internet Psychoanalyst Guy! He has something to say to you about the INTERNET.

[chervilant]

234. Wow...

You just went from laughable to pitiable, in a single post...

(Please don't bother to reply; I'm clear that I'll be under the bus with the rest of the individuals with whom you disagree, and about whom you've cavalierly applied the term "disingenious.&quot

[Hissyspit]

151. No. It's not.

[bobduca]

180. fuck that false equivalence bullshit

[6000eliot]

208. +1000!

[dionysus]

210. he's just looking for the kind of attention he had during the bush admin on DU....

the windsock knows which way the wind blows...

[Logical]

118. LOL, wow, are you missing the whole point. nt

[Akira Watts]

119. Folks

Folks has a far different connotation than people. Just because two words are synonyms doesn't mean they evoke the same time response in the listener/reader.

[phleshdef]

123. I say "folks" all the time. I grew up in So. WV, its just one of those words I'm use to I guess.

[Akira Watts]

125. Folks

Obama's audience wasn't the subset of our population that uses folks and people interchangeably. It was the overall population, which sees folks as, while synonymous to people, having a less formal connotation. And that undercuts the whole statement.

[phleshdef]

127. I've heard Obama use the word "folks" constantly for the past 7 years.

Seems like he is like me, its just part of his vocabulary.

[rhett o rick]

161. Annnnnd you are totally off the point. Apparently intentionally. It isn't the word.

[bobduca]

188. re: Apparently intentionally...

Oh but to call the poster on that is beyond the pale... lol.

[bobduca]

183. willfully pretending that this an a regionalist assault on your choice of pronouns...

Novel approach ... I'll give you that.

[bobduca]

186. Only trying to match the bloated fecundity of your posts...

[phleshdef]

187. You are trying way too hard.

[HangOnKids]

238. Thank You!

The media pulls this stunt all the time, taking a ridiculous tangent AWAY from the issue and pushing nonsense.

[sibelian]

214. That word "disingenuous"...

Firstly, it's spelt differently, secondly, it has a rather specific meaning.

[chervilant]

231. Seems likely you should review the definition of disingenuous...

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

dis·in·gen·u·ous (dsn-jny-s)
adj.
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).

2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.

3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.


disin·genu·ous·ly adv.

disin·genu·ous·ness n.

Usage Note: The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means "insincere" and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as "tough love." This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning "playfully insincere, faux-naïf," as in the example "I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!" he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis- prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists.

(I can only presume that you meant "disingenuous" when you said "People upset over the word 'folks' are about as disingenious as it gets." Nice straw man, btw...)

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. President is a scoundrel on this subject

It's horrible for him to be channelling Bob Boudelang on this - "they're real patriots, so stop saying that!!!"

[rhett o rick]

135. I wanted to write what I thought of the President's speech but this article did it much better.

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I totally agree with a few comments.

I don't know what the president was going for with the "We tortured some folks", but it failed on all levels. We torture quite a few people, humans, some of which were innocent men, women and even children. We brutalized them in many sick and perverted methods, killing some and ruining all of them.

"Obama saying that a line had been crossed was a nice gesture." I can't tell if the author is being facitious or not, but "nice" isn't what I would label the gesture. Maybe calculated. I very much doubt that he was going for "nice".

The comments on the part of his speech on being sanctimonious were right on the money: "Don't get sanctimonious? They were under pressure? They're all good patriots? Are you kidding me?" I would only add "fucking" between "Are you" and "kidding me." But that's me.

"This is America. Go ahead, violate the Geneva Convention." That's right, fuck the Geneva Convention, it doesn't apply to the biggest bully on the block.

IMO the President did the worse thing possible. He clumsily tried to rationalize away the horrors of torture. He ignored it for 6 years, during which time some held out the hope he would eventually come out strong against the horrors of torture. Now he has dashed those dreams. It's very unlikely that he will issue stronger words in the future.

[bigtree]

155. this is an epic DU thread.

[rhett o rick]

162. .

[blkmusclmachine]

157. http://www.supportgenevaconventions.org/images/torture_in_iraq.jpg

[blkmusclmachine]

158. http://previous.presstv.ir/photo/20101027/lotfi_morteza20101027125134403.jpg

[blkmusclmachine]

159. http://www.thecontrarianmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/iraq-torture-dogs-thumb-tm.jpg

[blkmusclmachine]

160. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2435/3619890622_1a0537ef42.jpg

[myrna minx]

173. Hey, look! it's some folks! Dead, tortured folks. Dead and tortured in our name.

Don't get too sanctimonious about it, you professional leftists.

[MFM008]

163. If he had acted

If he had brought the architects of torture to justice. No. The Bush/Cheney nonsense has been continued, maybe not torture, but we wont know that for sure will we.

[TBF]

169. Those "folks" go free and people like Maureen Clare Murphy

are targeted by Holder's Justice Dept. So, we let right wing torturers off the hook, in fact refer to them as "patriots", and leftists get subpoenas to testify before the grand jury.

The United States government has criminalised the Palestinian people, and now it is increasingly treating US citizens who stand in solidarity with Palestine as criminals as well - including those courageously putting their lives on the line to break the siege on Gaza.

I am a Palestine solidarity activist in the US, and one of 23 US citizens who have been issued with a subpoena to appear before a federal grand jury as part of what the government has said is an investigation into violations of the laws banning material support to foreign "terrorist organisations".

None of us have given money or weapons to any group on the State Department's foreign terrorist organisation list. But what many of us have done is participate in or help organise educational trips to meet with Palestinians and Colombians resisting the US-funded military regimes they live under.

The goal of these trips is to learn about the human rights violations happening in these places and to bring those stories back home to the US, to educate people and to organise to change US foreign policy for the better.

More here: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011626121757256629.html

And here:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2011/01/25/activism-not-crime-why-i-will-not-testify-federal-grand-jury
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/maureen-clare-murphy/nine-palestinians-killed-protests-across-west-bank

[slipslidingaway]

175. knr n/t

[Peregrine Took]

189. I was such a chump, at my age, to be sucked in by him.

IMO, it was his fault that the Dems stayed home in 2010.

[proverbialwisdom]

193. TAKE ACTION: Here's what experts in the field want the public to do.

PETITION: http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/torturetruth

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/top-interrogators-and-intelligence-officials-urge-president-obama-ensure-cia
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/experts-call-cia-torture-report-release-obama-says-us-tortured-after-911
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/letter-retired-military-leaders-president-obama-cia-and-release-torture-report

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/campaigns/release-senate-report-cia-torture-program

Link from:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025336796

bigtree OP: Letter from Retired Military Leaders to President Obama on CIA and the Release of the Torture Report

[center]

[/center]

[whereisjustice]

195. torture, wall street criminals, spying, offshoring, H1B, patriot act, Israeli violence

"You know, some folks ripped off retirement accounts of some other folks, causing immeasurable suffering for millions worldwide, but hey, they were just hard workin folks and you can't blame them for lovin their jobs..."

Our Democratic Party seems to have decided the platform can be streamlined to include only two legs, access to abortion and gay rights (after vacillating back and forth with popular sentiment on the whole gay rights thing).

The 1% and their proxies in Washington have boiled our participation in government down to a few wedge issues and they are fucking us over daily with them.

Well, hand it to the MBA types, they've done a great job of turning our party into a cold, sterile, corporate sanctuary, intolerant of diverse ideas, loyal only to the biggest, most corrupt institutions.

In other words, what our political elite are telling us, is this:

"Get back to your cube or we'll bring in some dude from India who doesn't give a shit about abortion or gay rights and is smart enough to work for half the pay while keeping his goddamn mouth shut."

The New American dream. Our kids will surely thank us.

[bigwillq]

196. K and R (nt)

[cantbeserious]

204. Impossible To Defend The Indefensible

eom

[grahamhgreen]

205. is there a worse crime than torture?

[dionysus]

211. murder? OTT but yes there is.

[grahamhgreen]

220. Right! They did that, too:(

[emsimon33]

219. K&R

[gtar100]

221. You know when you've been told that torturers are "patriots" that the criminals and scoundrels

of our day have taken control of our government. They have no sense of justice or fairness. It's the antithesis of human rights, which is simply an inconvenience to them, something to be scoffed at.

Torturers are now our patriots. Right. The myth of America being a land of freedom and opportunity has now officially been turned on its head.

[Enthusiast]

222. K&R! This post has hundreds of recommendations!

And rightly so!

Hear that, President Obama?

[chervilant]

232. Gee, Will...

You're getting some extreme responses herein...

I, for one, appreciate this OP and the linked article. I have been heartsick for almost two decades, now, about the horrific crimes being committed "in our names." I am deeply distressed that our current POTUS has elected to continue making excuses for these criminals.

[PowerToThePeople]

237. Truth, however awful it may be. Obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of justice by the President that I voted for. Twice.

[quaker bill]

242. Mine didn't at all

You do not object to torture more than I.

The statement is correct and has been known to be correct for the greater part of a decade now. We tortured some folks (actual people). We violated the Geneva Conventions, the laws of war, the principles of just war, international law, human rights, civil rights, our constitution and laws, the Ten Commandments, and just about everything short of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics, and we would have done that too if it was easy and "against the terrorists".

When the pictures came out, the whole collection including the one in your post, where was the outcry? You know, the general strike, the throngs and masses of people in the streets demanding the immediate resignation of anyone involved? I did not notice it.

So now, many years later, long after all the torture has ended and our participation in the unjust war is over, we are going to get bent over what could most generously be termed poor semantics?

Having been there when the news broke, I am pretty sure you and I were equally appalled. However "we the people" (330 million of us) greeted this news with a shrug, a sigh, and then tuned back into "24". Heck a good sized slice of us still think President Obama is showing "weakness" for having stopped it. We are still a very long way from the trials and tribunals so justly deserved. We are closer to one poor election result starting it again.