Obama on releasing/redacting memos: We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history

[ProSense]

BREAKING: Obama to Release Secret Interrogation Memos (UPDATE x3: President Obama's Statement):

UPDATE x3:

Via tomjones, Marc Ambinder has a link to the statement by the President:

Ambinder sums up the memos:

In sum: he's decided to redact the identities of the CIA officers who conducted the interrogations, but everything else will be released without censorship.

Key takeaway from President Obama's statement:

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time...This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

This preceding paragraph would probably explain what's going on at Bagram.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

(Emphasis mine)

Again, it sounds to me like he's trying to strike a balance. Whether you agree with that or not is your judgment call.

Full statement by President Obama here

Woo hoo!

[NightWatcher]

1. fine, redact the names of the operators, but prosecute the people who signed the orders

and gave the word from the top.

[wryter2000]

4. Exactly

What you said. :applause:

[ProSense]

5. Yeah, we went from

he's not going to release them, to they'll be heavily redacted, to only the names will be redacted.

If only the names are redacted, as far as a start, this would be a home run.



Edited typo.

[annabanana]

22. I'm with you... The civilian "leadership" is culpable here and should

be held to account.

[bdamomma]

2. We need to look behind for us to move forward.

they need to hold those accountable for these crimes, restore rule of law.

[wryter2000]

3. I'm not all that interested in going after the CIA operatives

In fact, they could make excellent witnesses if given immunity. I want the people who ordered the torture. Most of all, I want the 'Murikan people to know what they've been endorsing. If little boys were raped in front of their parents, I want the bozos who think everything is Jack Bauer to find out about it.

[Political Heretic]

7. Someone needs to be held accountable, that is PART of RULE OF LAW.

CIA people following orders? No, my preference would be to grant the immunity for their testimony - but the people who created the plan, and authorized - they need to be punished for crimes.

[ProSense]

13. All the bellyaching about Obama not releasing the memos.

Well, they're being released. If they reveal criminal acts, then I expect that someone will be prosecuted.

[Political Heretic]

18. Why would you expect that?

Given the statements that were made with the release of the memos.

And given the fact we already have enough information to prosecute.

We're not suffering from a lack of evidence.

We are suffering for a lack of POLITICAL WILL.

[Political Heretic]

6. I don't know what you're woo hooing, there is some serious bullshit in that announcement:

"But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Bullshit, and that attitude guarantees that we won't be moving forward for a long time to come.

Further down on KOS:

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is telling CIA officials who used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects that they won't be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

Senior administration officials told The Associated Press that Attorney General Eric Holder will release a statement Thursday giving the first definitive assurance to the CIA officials that they are legally in the clear."


So the "defend the constitution" part of Obama's presidential oath doesn't mean shit.

"The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. "

You just don't get it do you, Obama. We're NOT a nation of laws if there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY when our leaders BREAK THE LAW. You don't get to just go "hey I don't want to bother with enforcing the law on my watch, because I have other things I want to do." Not when you swear to uphold the constitution of the untied states.

[ProSense]

9. What? Who cares? Read

the statement yourself:

Obama Explains Memo Release Decision

Good grief, some people seem disappointed that he's releasing the memos.

Clue: This is good friggin news.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. "some people seem disappointed that he's releasing the memos."

They'd be upset if he hadn't released them, they're upset that he has, they'd be upset if he hadn't redacted the names.

[rateyes]

16. I, for one, am glad they are being released. I, for one, am upset

that no prosecutions are on the table for those authorized torture.

[global1]

20. Nobody's Here Is Upset He Released The Memo's - We Applaud That......

what I'm upset about and what I think others are upset about are the 'weasel words' in his statement that say the following:

"We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

Does that mean that he won't go after those that formulated the torture policies and those that ordered it - all the way to the top? If so - then that is BS.

I'm pleased he released the memos. I even go along with him not prosecuting the CIA operatives/officials that carried out the torture. I'm just hoping that he did that so that he can get them to point up and help prosecute those that formulated and ordered the torture.

If he lets the likes of Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Yo go - then we are not a nation of laws. He is telling me that they are above the law. He is condoning their actions. And this will happen again - only next time it will even be worse because he let them get away with it.

[Political Heretic]

17. Who cares? Are you fucking serious?

I for one am capable of entertaining more than one thought in my head.

Release of memos = good news. I've already made four posts in various threads saying good news.

But that's not the only news now is it?

Mixed in with this good news is some really shitty news. Namely that Obama continues his rhetoric about "not looking backward" which is completely wrong, and promises no prosecutions for CIA offcials who engaged in torture. TORTURE.

Don't you remember what you thought of America when you were a kid? Can't you remember the days when if someone had told you that America not only tortured, but wouldn't even punish people when caught you would have laughed in their face?

Now is all old news, and people even ridiculous those who get too "riled up" about it.

[ProSense]

19. Yes, I am "fucking" serious.

Who cares about the nitpicking over an article. Obama's statement is in the OP. You point to an article. Read the statement.

[Political Heretic]

21. I'm sorry you consider not standing up on torture to be "nitpicking"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. I'm so sorry for your lose, PH.

:nopity:

[Adelante]

8. I'm good with this

Thanks for posting it.

[WeDidIt]

10. That's the Barack I know!

What a GREAT President!

[ErinBerin84]

12. Fox is already spinning

"Does this....put more troops in harms way?" Ah, so predictable.

[AtomicKitten]

15. Works for me. Prosecute those that ordered torture. n/t

[Supersedeas]

23. only a cursory view of the memos reveals that more than names were redacted

Bradbury Memo, 5/10/05, p. 11 - nearly the entire page is blackout.

There may be a perfectly legitimate reason for doing so, but to suggest that only the names of agents were redacted is extremely misleading.

[ProSense]

25. I don't see that

Glen Greenwald:

UPDATE: These memos are now becoming available, and do truly appear to be almost entirely unredacted. They are unbelievably ugly and grotesque and conclusively demonstrate the sadistic criminality that consumed our government. Just consider parts of this August 1, 2002 Memo (.pdf) by then OLC official (and now-federal judge) Jay Bybee, authorizing the following techniques for Abu Zubaydah, who was shot three times on his capture and still suffering from those wounds when these techniques were authorized (click on images to enlarge - it's worth it):

<...>

Obama did the right thing by releasing these memos, providing all the information and impetus the citizenry should need to demand investigations and prosecutions. But it is up to citizens to demand that the rule of law be applied.

[Supersedeas]

26. I cited the specific reference -- have a look for yourself

You don't have to accept my version or Glen's version, just have a peek.

[ProSense]

27. Thanks, I believe that 's why I stated that I don't see that. Here:

This 46-page May 10, 2005 memo (.pdf) from OLC Chief Steven Bradbury

A 20-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury,\

A 40-page memo, dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury

You cited the wrong memo ("5/10/05, p. 11"). Still, even with the block in the May 30 memo, which could included a listing of names (read the lead in), the redacted portions in all the memos appear to be names.

[mvd]

24. I give him credit for releasing the memos at least

That is something McCain would have never done, despite McCain's history.