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

[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