Obama is doing something correct if both left and right groups are pissed on the torture issue

[zulchzulu]

The Right wing are pissed at Obama for releasing the torture documents, which now can be handled historically and perhaps visited or revisited by the Justice Department.

It puts the CIA (and others) on alert that any NEW torture techniques will be prosecuted. It also exposed the Bush administration's record and will be a historical reference.

Some of the Left (and rightfully so) think that Obama is letting the Bush administration get away with torture. I think that there are a couple of issues here at play that have put the Obama administration in a no-win situation.

Leon Panetta is an outsider to the CIA. Being the appointee to the CIA, he won't get any cooperation from the CIA if he comes in waving handcuffs and begins prosecuting those who "were following orders". Would Obama want Panetta to be the hatchet man going into the CIA and thus get shut off from them on intelligence matters? It's that simple.

Appointing a Special Prosecutor within the Justice Department would make the investigation not really begin at full force for several years. Add that many would not cooperate unless they were allowed to name names without getting a jail sentence. Look at how past Special Prosecution cases have ended in the past... you get the criminals to be able to testify under immunity... they walk away and get a million dollar book deal.

For Obama to focus on prosecuting the Bush administration at this time with everything else going on would take away a lot of time from other issues, like the possible next Depression. Balance out the fact that Obama has bruised Bush's legacy with the release of the torture documents.

It is indeed up to the Justice Department to continue concurrent investigations into the torture crimes under our name. Obama has stated that while he doesn't want to spend time on the effort with so much else going on, he has stated that if obvious illegalities are evident that he would allow justice to prevail.

While I agree with the ACLU's position from a "purist" standpoint, I also understand the political mechanizations at play with the recent decision about not prosecuting CIA officials.

Did they get away with torture? I think we are still in Act One of the drama. It ain't over yet. And the silver lining is that torture will not be allowed to happen under an Obama administration.

Obama gave Bush a big, oozing pussy back eye with the release of the torture documents. The rest of it all will be a shell game for the immediate future.

[xchrom]

1. and santa claus comes down chimneys. nt

[Skittles]

3. I hear you xchrom

yes indeed :(

[zulchzulu]

17. You could have at least mentioned the Easter Bunny... that would have been more "clever"

:boring:

[xchrom]

20. honey -- you wouldn't know clever if it bit you in your ass. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. seconded strongly. nt

[noamnety]

2. Fallacy: centrist positions are by definition, correct. (nt)

[zulchzulu]

7. I wouldn't just pull out the "He's a Centrist" card so easily

As I stated and hopefully indicated, there is a more complex web to this issue that just thinking that the Cavalry shows up and arrests all the bad guys... That's cartoon fallacy land.

Perhaps you can enlighten me on how Panetta would be an effective CIA head if he started out his gig turning over tables, frogmarching a lot of the heavies and then expect cooperation from CIA agents in the field...

Like I said, this is rock vs. hard place stuff if you look at the issue fully. Politics is indeed part of the equation.

Bush and his cronies are now and will be seen as for torture, based on the record releases. There are other ways to prosecute them besides having the President issue orders from the Oval Office.

[noamnety]

10. I didn't say "he's a centrist"

I pointed out a logical fallacy in the rationale you gave.

[zulchzulu]

15. You are incorrect in assuming it's a "centrist" position

We have more than three crayon colors in the box.

My position is based on the fact that there are other avenues to prosecute those responsible for torture techniques and that Obama doesn't have to be the only one doing it. He has a hell of a lot of other things to worry about that frankly are much more critical than arresting thugs who did the wrong thing.

Politics is a complicated set of arrays that all work within each other. It's silly to throw around bumpersticker axioms... that's for Captain Obvious.

Amuse me with how you think Panetta would be able to do a decent job with the CIA if his first efforts are to investigate and prosecute the very people he needs to do his job.

Otherwise, get some more crayons.

[earthside]

4. Wrong.

Obama is not doing something correct.

The right-wing is protecting its own ass and they are always happiest when somebody is being tortured, maimed or killed in the name of national security.

That is different than the left which wants justice and a restoration of our honor.

Playing politics with the CIA is just exactly the kind of crap that most of us voted against last November.

Plus, if we have learned anything from the Church hearings it is that if you give the CIA the notion that they can get away with doing illegal stuff ... they will.

Not prosecuting the people who approved torture is just a plain bad decision that Obama and Company will come to regret in the future.

Finally, aren't we all sick of everything becoming just part if the political calculations? Don't we sometimes just want people who did bad things brought to account? Does everything have to be about how the left or right is mad or happy?

[zulchzulu]

8. How effective would Panetta be?

Answer that and maybe I'll read your purist prose.

[earthside]

14. If Panaetta is that weak ...

... and ineffective as an administrator, then he shouldn't have taken the job.

See, this is so typical of a 'politician' mentality ... if you just want something simple, like torturers brought to justice, why that's denigrated as being "purist."

These kinds of fuzzy, apologetic rationalizations will ultimately be the thing that will lead Democrats to defeat. You've got to stand for something, somewhere, sometime.

If torture perpetrated by American officials isn't a bottom-line issue that we should all want prosecuted, then what the hell is?!!

[zulchzulu]

16. Panetta is an outsider to the CIA. Would you rather have a CIA insider as director?

We have had one... or four recently. That worked out well.

:crazy:

[Sebastian Doyle]

32. I'd rather not have a CIA at all

They do not now, nor have they ever, served any legitimate purpose. They are terrorist thug criminals established by, and only benefiting, the self-appointed "royalty" of this country (i.e. the Bush Crime Family and their cronies)

[chimpymustgo]

5. Um, NO. He's just plain WRONG. Absurd logic there.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. Obama has access to all sorts of things besides the torture

he could blow the GOP sky high if he wanted. I think someone is tying his hands.

[zulchzulu]

12. Do you think Panetta would get cooperation from the CIA as an outsider?

I know a lot of people are not looking at that critical issue when it comes to the torture issue.

Anyone who knows how things work in DC knows that politics is the glue to any decision.

If Panetta begins an investigation on torture within the CIA ranks as his first efforts, he will not have a cooperative agency to work with. As I have indicated, there are other channels where investigations can continue and it will eventually come to fruition.

Do you think it would be a good thing from a bipartisan standpoint to blow up the GOP sky high? They are doing a fantastic job right now destroying themselves.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

23. yes his hands are tied

not wanting to rock any boats

[MadBadger]

9. I agree with the the body of your message, just not what the subject implies

Its not necessarily true that he is doing something correct because the left and right disagrees with him. That just means he is somewhere in the center. This isnt like journalism where for example somebody is seen as a RW tool by the left and a Liberal gas bag by the right, and that is a good thing.

I do agree though with your analysis of the situation as it relates to politics and the economy.

[rpannier]

11. By that logic if I praise Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot as the four greatest leaders of the 20th

century then I must be correct because the right and left will be upset with me

[zulchzulu]

13. When anyone pulls out the Stalin, Hitler, Mao and/or Pol Pot card, they get the buzzer

You forgot Alexander The Great.

:crazy:

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Sorry, that is bullshit

You do not get to exclude historical examples by quoting some idiotic revisionist internet playgroud rule.
I'd like to take you to meet some suriviors I know, tell them Hitler is not relevent to discussions of torture.

[xchrom]

18. there is a U.S. tradition -- my lai notable, as well as nuremberg

that holds 'soldiers' as responsible for war crimes.

we have a history of asking soldiers -- and the cia is nothing is nothing if not a soldier in the employ of the u.s. -- not to follow orders that are implicitly illegal and inhumane.

now because obama -- is president that they will excuse the basics of humane and civilized behavior.

we are all of us held to certain standards -- soldier, civilian and commander.

[TheKentuckian]

24. I feel you to an extent but if you can't get by on DoJ then you have to pretty much scrap the whole

system. They enforce the law and we can't afford tit for tat enforcement or to set any precedent that allows Uncle Sam to be able to change laws, in effect and then to punish retroactively.

I don't see how we can punish these operatives within the context of our own law. This is not just getting unlawful orders. If you have the consent of Justice, Congress, or (obviously) clear the Supreme Court, you are acting within the only law we have, that we are capable of enforcing.

Setting this kind of insane precedent in the law would be a crime even beyond the reach of BushCo. and Lord knows they have probably tried.
All actions have consequences and a lot of times the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Under no circumstances should we ever, never, ever, never give government such authority.

The level of the crime is a game changer. I don't see how you can even logically prosecute an operative even if you have (but that would seem a prerequisite) already prosecuted those that made and rubberstamped the orders, including at least some Congressional review, which makes it a tougher nut as they make the law then would be in concert with those who enforce the law.

I believe the President's authority probably ends at allowing extradition to a foreign or world court but our current DoJ and/or Congress might have a leg to stand on in going after BushCo, those given authority under the Constitution, and maybe to most likely their lawyers for violating their oaths and/or subverting the Constitution. At a certain point some are arguing that individuals are responsible for interpreting (and getting it right, in effect for all time) above and beyond the government who's law it is.

To whom would such people appeal?

When you're answer is no one then you have to accept that is the end of the scope of our law. I don't get why this is something that people refuse to deal with. We have the checks and balances to prevent this kind of conundrum from happening, our system deals with letting the whole works becoming subverted is Revolution aka good luck motherfuckers, you're on your own from there. There is simply no internal source of authority for the prosecution demanded and cannot be and have any chance of avoiding tyranny and maintaining something resembling a functioning legal system.

[xchrom]

53. i'm confused?

torture is not only wrong but illegal.

people in charge know that -- cia agents know that -- lot's of people know that.

this isn't magic -- or smiley's world.

you have DOJ do it's job -- there is precedent -- you do your job and carry on.

[bigjohn16]

19. President Obama is on the wrong side of history.

He set a precedent for future administrations that if you want to get away with a crime all you have to do is mess things up so badly that the next administration will be paralyzed. I just hope there are no other major problems in the next 4 years because the Obama administration can't handle too many things at once. He all but gave immunity to torturers and their handlers I'm sure that really sent a chill up the spine of the CIA. He's avoiding making any tough decisions when it really counts. He folds on the issue of justice and instead gives tortures a pass because they were torturing with good faith.

I'm tired of this irrational fear of the CIA they're government employees there were possible crimes committed and they need to be held accountable.

This isn't some simple little policy issue I can respectfully disagree on. This is the man I voted for completely abdicating his responsibilities when it comes to justice. I don't care how long it takes or if it drains this country dry if we fail to even investigate this then it will happen again but next time they won't have to write torture memos they'll just copy and paste.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigjohn16]

31. Thanks for the personal insult.

Your right he's just the one letting them walk free and abdicating his duty as a leader.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigjohn16]

37. Why do you think I'm pretending?

What the point of being so insulting a condescending is this how you would converse with someone face to face?

[omega minimo]

39. Let's review: Your post is FOS, accusing Obama of what Bushco did; need we go on?

"He set a precedent for future administrations that if you want to get away with a crime all you have to do is mess things up so badly that the next administration will be paralyzed. "

[bigjohn16]

42. I didn't say any such thing.

By giving the Bush administration a pass he opened the door for future administrations to repeat the past. He's saying there will be no accountability and that because Bush messed up the economy he can't be bothered with prosecuting war criminals because it's politically inconvenient. If I knew it would cost President Obama his second term I would still call for a full investigation because this is about something much bigger than him. It's about what we want our country to be and how we want the world to see us. That you don't agree is your cross to bear but you still don't have to be so insulting.

[omega minimo]

43. You are denying your own quote.

[bigjohn16]

45. Am I well thanks for telling me that i'll try to do better in the future.

I know what I said so I guess were done here if that's all you have to say about my last post.

[omega minimo]

46. I quoted you and you said you never said any such thing.

:crazy:

[bigjohn16]

47. You misinterpreted my quote.

Still with the insults you must be a pleasure to be around in person.

[omega minimo]

48. I quoted you!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!111111 Misinterpreted?

:rofl:

[bigjohn16]

49. It was nice talking with you.

This has become very unproductive but it's been very enlightening. Thanks.

[omega minimo]

67. You did and there's nothing to "agree" b/c YOU are "on the wrong side of history"

Your quote:

"He set a precedent for future administrations that if you want to get away with a crime all you have to do is mess things up so badly that the next administration will be paralyzed."

This precedent was set by previous Bush administrations.

You don't acknowledge that and try to hang it on Obama, suggesting his "second term" is at stake. None of your arguments are convincing.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. No more on the wrong side of history than anybody else in this regard

Other Presidents have committed crimes that are equally reprehensible. Never have they been prosecuted for them.

[bigjohn16]

51. That's no reason to give a pass to these war criminals. nt

[zulchzulu]

52. Actually Obama has banned torture and made it so in his first week of office

I think some people are confused about what is going on. Obama stopped torture. He also released documents showing that the Bush administration DID torture.

It's now up to various committees to investigate the records. It's also not time for a Special Prosecutor that would take years to compile a case and would have to work with people who would plead the Fifth and get immunity anyway.

This whole torture issue is far from over.

[jewishlibrl]

54. Nothing keeps Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin from torturing, if they win

Because all they will have to do is tell some puppett lawyers to legitimize torture again.

Unless we teach past torturers a lesson, of course, in which case Romney or Palin will think about it twice.

[MessiahRp]

58. +1 EXACTLY!

Obama didn't "BAN" torture. He just stopped it from happening under his watch. It can restart any time he's out of office and the legal precedent will be set by the fact that the Bush Administration only needed a few loony legal opinions in support of torture and that the next administration, OBAMA's Administration, didn't feel any need to prosecute it as a crime.

It is now consequence free to torture illegally in the future.

Thanks Obama!

Rp

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Well, he says he's banned it

but Bush also said 'we do not torture'. Also said they got warrents for wiretapping. Was he correct and true, just for saying it?
Words are cheap and a politician's words are the cheapest of all.

[Clio the Leo]

21. MOST of the time the "extremes" on either side are not pleased with him..

.... so I agree with you ;)

[Hutzpa]

22. This is an explanation NanceGreggs

could do like a third grade teacher.

[omega minimo]

27. lucky for you

:spray:

[Hutzpa]

33. Aren't you the one with the temper tantrums???

throwing fits, its either over blown ego full of air or someone who did not
receive love while growing up.

[omega minimo]

36. phony

[Hutzpa]

38. Oh yes I'm that alright

just so I can get under your thin skin with my phony act and imagine you regurgitating over
your PC while figuring out how to start a gramma thread.

[omega minimo]

40. Nah, yer just pissed cuz ya spelt Chutzpa wrong ..................

:hi:

[HughMoran]

55. yes

lol

[TheKentuckian]

25. To the OP, the logic can break down.

On occasion it is possible (no matter how improbable or likely) that A) The right and the left extremes will be in agreement, B) In opposition to Obama, and C) Be correct.

Just because it is usually chilly in the morning doesn't mean it will be every morning, especially when carried out over long enough time. One day the Sun may enlarge into our orbital slot and then it won't be too brisk anytime of day.

Now, if you're talking in terms of tend to think then I'd agree. I tend to think someone is on track if the extremes aren't pleased but no was has an absolute monopoly on correctness. Though the Republicans are getting remarkably close to always wrong.

[omega minimo]

28. John Yoo is a lying sack of extraterrestrial excrement. Pres. Obama ia a Constitutional scholar.

Unitary Executive is a Nazi Bushco pipe dream.

Apologists on DU are deluded.

And here we are.

[omega minimo]

26. Equivocation does not transcend the Law, even for Unitary Executives and DU pontificators.

:thumbsup:

[sampsonblk]

30. Failed logic. Again.

Your subject line is hogwash. Hopefully you were just trying to attract attention to your actual post.

[empyreanisles]

34. I agree with you. Obama made a decision that will move us forward.

It would have been nice to become a progressive hero. But not this time. Common sense overrules.

[omega minimo]

So many unfamiliar faces supporting Obama's missteps

:toast:

[BlooInBloo]

41. But I want a schnozzberry NOW DADDY!!!!

[ElboRuum]

60. Funny, I always thought all the kids except Charlie Bucket

were NOT to be emulated, according the the lesson I got. Veruca Salt least of all. That do so many DUers feel the need to flush themselves down the bad egg chute is beyond me.

Maybe if I wake up a little first, this will all make sense. :hangover:

[and-justice-for-all]

44. As much as some of you are bitching about this observation...

It is probably more correct. Obama is not a hard left Pres. He is a centrist Pres. who is reeling in the hard right position of the last 'administration'.

This makes since to me:
"The Right wing are pissed at Obama for releasing the torture documents, which now can be handled historically and perhaps visited or revisited by the Justice Department."

"Some of the Left (and rightfully so) think that Obama is letting the Bush administration get away with torture. I think that there are a couple of issues here at play that have put the Obama administration in a no-win situation."

I want to see Dick face and Shrub prosecuted as much as the next person here, but it looks Obama sees it differently.

[ZombieHorde]

56. By this logic, the school shooters were correct, as was Hitler.

[ElboRuum]

57. You are right.

Unfortunately, you will get deaf ears aplenty with this one.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

63. this is spin. he was correct to release the torture memo and it took guts

defying his cia director. he is wrong to place political expedience, ease and compromise ahead of the torture issue. which is what the is doing by not prosecuting those involved.

[shagsak]

64. Question

Since these acts breach the War Crimes Act, wouldn't they be prosecutable by the Federal Courts? Would they even need the President to approve prosecution?

I'm confused as to whether Obama can even make that call - aside from granting a pardon to certain individuals.

Seems like since he released the documents that criminalizes certain individuals, the door has been opened to investigate and prosecute where needed.

[zulchzulu]

65. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers is starting an investigation

I should have stated this in the OP, but here is a PERFECT example of how Obama can release the documents (which give warnings to the CIA and smacks Bush squarely in the teeth) and not have Panetta have to walk into the CIA with handcuffs and arrest warrants.

John Conyers has begun an investigation that is BETTER than Leahy's (which would grant immunity to those that would testify, i.e., let them get away). The Judiciary Committee can gather the evidence and then hand it over to the Federal Courts to begin their legal course, which would be a LOT faster than having to appoint a Special Prosecutor, which would take years to get going:

Conyers, of course, has been pressing for a “National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties,” composed of experts outside government “to investigate the broad range of policies of the Bush administration that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers.” Unlike Sen. Pat Leahy’s (D-Vt.) proposed “Commission of Inquiry,” the House bill, which has 27 cosponsors, would not provide immunity for officials who broke the law.

http://washingtonindependent.com/39447/conyers-renews-call-for-investigation-of-bush-administration-actions

We should all be supporting Conyers on his efforts.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

66. Highly disingenuous argument

"Appointing a Special Prosecutor within the Justice Department would make the investigation not really begin at full force for several years. Add that many would not cooperate unless they were allowed to name names without getting a jail sentence. Look at how past Special Prosecution cases have ended in the past... you get the criminals to be able to testify under immunity... they walk away and get a million dollar book deal.

For Obama to focus on prosecuting the Bush administration at this time with everything else going on would take away a lot of time from other issues, like the possible next Depression. Balance out the fact that Obama has bruised Bush's legacy with the release of the torture documents."


You say a Special Prosecutor (actually an Independent Counsel--the SP class hasn't existed for years) wouldn't get started for years and wouldn't get the bad guys.

Your critique implies you want a process to get started right away and get the bad guys. But you don't because that would take time from other issues.

So you are throwing out stuff at random hoping dumb readers will latch onto one thing or another.

An independent counsel would not take time from other issues. She would be independent and do her work in some office building and generally not interfere with anything going on in the current executive branch except insofar as somebody might have to hunt up documents she needed.

[zulchzulu]

68. Really? A Special Prosecutor "hasn't existed for years"? Please let the legal community know ASAP!

If you have a WIKI account, make the change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor

Then go to Law.com and change their definition:

special prosecutor

n. an attorney from outside of the government selected by the Attorney General or Congress to investigate and possibly prosecute a federal government official for wrongdoing in office. The theory behind appointing a special prosecutor is that there is a built-in conflict of interest between the Department of Justice and officials who may have political or governmental connections with that department. The most famous special pros- ecutor was law professor Archibald Cox, originally chosen to inves-tigate White House (and President Richard Nixon's) involvement in the Watergate scandal. President Nixon demanded that Attorney General Elliot Richardson fire Cox, who was being aggressive in his investigation, and Richardson resigned rather than comply, as did Assistant Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Deputy Attorney General Robert Bork finally discharged Cox.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1987&bold=||||

You're the genius. Change the legal term.

:wow:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

69. You are giving the other morons a bad name

I love it when people cite evidence without reading it to see it contradicts them...


The act creating the special prosecutor role was allowed to expire early in Bush's first term.

There is no provision in US law for DoJ to appoint a special prosecutor in the Ken Starr mold. The rules have changed.

And the term "Special Prosecutor" was retired in 1983!

There are "Independent Counsels" and "Special Counsels"

Fitzgerald was a "Special Counsel."

This is not controversial just because you don't know it.

[Vidar]

70. I think Obama is dead wrong, but good point on Panetta.

[rug]

71. What is "a big, oozing pussy back eye"?