General Discussion

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)

86. I'm no big defender of President Obama's seeming diffidence towards the

Reply to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 11, 2014, 12:26 PM

Dec 2014

torturers of the Bush-Cheney Junta, but on his second day in office, President Obama issued an Executive Order banning the use of torture henceforth by any agent of the U.S. government. (Don't have the specific links ready at hand, but they are easily searchable.) Thus, any torture occurring after that EO would have to be either by rogue agents of the U.S. actiing in direct contravention of a Presidential EO or, more nefariously, by Obama''s covert instructions to violate and subvert his own public EO. I have seen no allegations by anyone that the latter happened. There will always be allegations of 'secret government' rogues who operate outside of, or in parallel to, the constitutional operation of the government.

The force-feeding of hunger striking detainees at Guantanomo is a 'contested terrain,' with human rights organizations calling the practice 'torture' but an equally valid argument that doing so advances the value of protecting life on the opposite side.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The biggest reason why President Bush will not be prosecuted for torture [View all] Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 OP

Then he shouldn't be deploying drones to kill people. Scuba Dec 2014 #1

It's a little too late for that, isn't it? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #3

uh, no..he could stop doing it RIGHT NOW! choie Dec 2014 #4

So, he would be immune from prosecution if he stopped it before his term was over? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #5

So in other words Obama choie Dec 2014 #6

Presidents don't always have the luxury of being 'moral leaders.' Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #8

And why doesn't he have. choie Dec 2014 #13

It's not entirely clear what he is doing is illegal Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #35

Exactly. It is entirely clear that what Bush and his cohort did was illegal under both KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #58

Luxury? GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #32

This is the reality you and I live in Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #36

would you say the same thing if choie Dec 2014 #45

of course not Scootaloo Dec 2014 #62

My point exactly Scootaloo! choie Dec 2014 #90

I t shouldn't be about avoiding prosecution. It should be about not killing people! MoonRiver Dec 2014 #87

Another good reason to prosecute. JEB Dec 2014 #2

So, you believe that President Obama would want to be prosecuted? Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #37

I expect my government to obey all laws. JEB Dec 2014 #59

Under what 'law' would or could President Obama be prosecuted? I'm not saying you're wrong, but KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #61

Obama had an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, killed by a drone attack. Calista241 Dec 2014 #85

More problematic along that same spectrum would be the case of al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son who, KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #91

How about a prosecution in the World Court? Vinca Dec 2014 #7

It has no jurisdiction as the US is not a participant Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #9

If a person from a participating country was tortured by the U.S. could it be tried there? Vinca Dec 2014 #29

No, that's not how it works Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #33

You are confusing and conflating the International Court of Justice (aka "World Court") with KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #69

bullshit edhopper Dec 2014 #10

There was no effort to criminally prosecute President Clinton over any of Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #11

A special prosecutor edhopper Dec 2014 #12

There are some who argue that the drone strikes are illegal Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #39

Some might edhopper Dec 2014 #46

Oh, FFS, if drone strikes are 'illegal,' what is the statute that makes them so? (Their KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #71

I guess he forgot. Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #27

Like the Dems always do edhopper Dec 2014 #28

There was no effort to criminally prosecute President Clinton over any of the things Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #40

Of course impeachment is nothing. Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #49

Your words, not mine. It had nothing to do with his duties as President Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #50

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution Scootaloo Dec 2014 #54

It is the only way edhopper Dec 2014 #57

I don't think OP is talking about sitting presidents. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #60

True edhopper Dec 2014 #67

Who said it was? On the other hand it's Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #65

Well, good thing Pelosi took it "off the table" back in 2006, then Scootaloo Dec 2014 #68

As I recall the OP applauded this move by her. Kingofalldems Dec 2014 #70

Bravo! Clinton might arguably have faced criminal liability after removal from office (heavy KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #72

While true, the workaround is for the President to tell the World Court if they indict he will stevenleser Dec 2014 #14

Dream on. OldEurope Dec 2014 #15

Drone use is not a crime. I dont know why that myth persists. The only potential issue with Drones stevenleser Dec 2014 #16

So you don't consider it a crime to kill someone OldEurope Dec 2014 #19

I dont write international law and neither do you. International law says it is not a crime stevenleser Dec 2014 #20

You do not know anything about my knowledge of law. OldEurope Dec 2014 #25

What statutes under international law would 'drone use' violate? I'm not saying you're wrong, mind KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #74

I said you don't write it. I didn't comment on your knowledge. Your response to me was about my stevenleser Dec 2014 #77

There may also be an abstract constitutional issue at stake, in that use of drones in theaters KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #73

Um edhopper Dec 2014 #18

Where did I suggest ... OldEurope Dec 2014 #22

Oh edhopper Dec 2014 #24

Focusing on Bush too, is only the tip of the iceberg treestar Dec 2014 #17

Pedantic note: I do take issue with your use of the term 're-elected,' since KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #76

Pedantic not taken treestar Dec 2014 #93

Hey Freddie - how's your bud Arne Duncan doing? tenderfoot Dec 2014 #21

Mr. Duncan is doing well Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #41

You must be proud of the job he's doing helping to destroy public education tenderfoot Dec 2014 #43

I am proud of the job that he is doing and it would appear that so is the President Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #56

I'm okay with that. LeftyMom Dec 2014 #23

That is exactly why he should prosecuted on point Dec 2014 #26

The biggest reason is that the average American doesn't care. Maedhros Dec 2014 #30

I'm perfectly OK with Obama being prosecuted for murdering civilians with drones. [n/t] Maedhros Dec 2014 #31

What a pitiful excuse for being immoral. 99Forever Dec 2014 #34

The biggest reason is that we are a violent and ignorant nation. How's that for bluntness? WinkyDink Dec 2014 #38

Fear of retribution may indeed be one reason LondonReign2 Dec 2014 #42

Incorrect. Orsino Dec 2014 #44

Killing and torture. They're just doing their job, and we can't stop them? Zorra Dec 2014 #47

Complete nonsense. Under what criminal statute could he be prosecuted in the US for using drones? Vattel Dec 2014 #48

18 U.S.C �1111. Murder Freddie Stubbs Dec 2014 #53

Nope. Vattel Dec 2014 #88

Freddie, I don't want W prosecuted. . . DinahMoeHum Dec 2014 #51

Why doesn't the rest of the world just prosecute them? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #52

+1 treestar Dec 2014 #66

Your argument ignores U.S. obligations under the U.N. Convention KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #55

But there is a problem with that. Savannahmann Dec 2014 #75

Your unclear pronoun references ("that") in this case are KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #78

I thought this morning as Scarborough was complaining about the drones Thinkingabout Dec 2014 #63

IMO the biggest reason is that it is not so easy as it looks treestar Dec 2014 #64

Obama could state publicly that he will defer to a decision by the KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #79

Does the ICJ have jurisdiction? treestar Dec 2014 #92

As members of the U.N. and holding a seat on the U.N. Security Council, I'm KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #94

It's immoral to prosecute the mentally deficient. n/t librechik Dec 2014 #80

Joking aside, I read somewhere that Lawrence Walsh declined to KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #82

I know--he just pretends to be dumb to get out of trouble librechik Dec 2014 #84

Really awesome thread. Sincere compliments! - nt KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #81

Are we positive beyond doubt ZERO torture has happened post 1/20/2009? cherokeeprogressive Dec 2014 #83

I'm no big defender of President Obama's seeming diffidence towards the KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #86

criminal prosecution under federal law would not require the President treestar Dec 2014 #95

The same reason politicians don't impeach (except maybe the president) rock Dec 2014 #89

Bush and Cheney almost certainly know where a lot of bodies are buried. Calista241 Dec 2014 #96