Gibbs: We're not holding torture authors accountable because I said so.

[jewishlibrl]

Run time: 01:43 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYCDvLPNURI   Posted on YouTube: April 20, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 21, 2009 By DU Member: jewishlibrl Views on DU: 1632

 
This was today in the White House press conference. Further confirmation that torture will go unpunished.

[rateyes]

1. This is not right. President Obama has a duty to hold these people accountable

to the people, and the law.

[SLSmith]

2. More complete Vid on this Q&A on Torture today!

Ed Henry went back & forth with Gibbs today on Torture Memos - for the complete vid of this exchange here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPMchUAiBe4

[FLAprogressive]

3. "good faith" my fucking ass.

[raystorm7]

4. On his watch =/ Obama just gave any future President the right to "legalize" torture... PERIOD!

[Fendius]

5. Im really torn

between believing he Will Not do anything about prosecuting, or has done something very big already by releasing the memo's.. So far we know Obama likes to know the situation front and back before acting on it(IMO). This is a very touchy and fragile situation. I really hope justice is found in all of it though..

[tomm2thumbs]

9. I agree - it defies rational thinking that he is simply in favor of all of this and has flipped out

This is an intelligent and thoughtful person who has the most knowledge of what is going on right now and I highly doubt that he has suddenly been given a transfusion of someone else's blood and a brain transfer from hitler and is now out to ruin human rights, undermine our country and end the world. The people that are mad have reasons to be angry, but I don't think that 'angry' makes the best thought process to deal with reality. I still trust the smart guy in the White House. What purpose does it serve him to ruin the country he is trying to repair?

[TheEuclideanOne]

6. Grrr... If you say that crimes were committed, it isn't enough just to say that you are not going

to commit those crimes yourself. In fact, that is not offering a whole lot. If something is illegal, then you are not expected to do it anyway. After WWII, did the world say, we are going to take the big step of "not throwing people into ovens" and treat it as though they took some moral high ground by simply "not committing attrocities"?

[graywarrior]

7. Something doesn't smell right with this

[RandomThoughts]

8. And what do you see when you look forward?

The repercussions of a lawless society? One where justice is only used if it is a person going against an economic interest of the aristocracy? Where aristocracy protects each other because if the common people learn what's done, the illusion of the competency of the self claimed elite falls away.

Maybe people in power think that if aristocracy loses control by even one of there own getting in trouble, the people will realize they can make a difference. And they call this a loss of order, but order is not protection of a few in power, its a society that believes itself just, and even one that believes it holds the higher ideals.

Maybe the status quo of those in power is challenged when the lack of justice of their actions is put to justice. Maybe they protect their own group, calling it order, when it is looking forward to repeated actions condoned by not being shown to be wrong by actions of law and justice.

If found guilty, mercy could be given to those that threw out law for there own reasons, then again, couldn't that same mercy be given to every person that robs a store, stealing precious money. If those that stole the integrity of a nation are shown such mercy, is it mercy or self serving? Maybe everyone that steals a few gallons of gas at a gas station, or shoplifts food at a store should be given that same justice, and just look forward.

Would that be saying doing those things are OK? Or is this whole thing saying you can commit crimes if you have a megaphone that can be used to make things difficult for others.

Hey you know what that means, they are saying if you are in the club, or can say something(regardless if true) to enough people, you can do what ever you want, because you would cause more problems then its worth.

Above the law.

[Voice for Peace]

16. today when I look forward I see these guys and their offspring laughing their heads off

in think tanks and making plans to return to power.

[Voice for Peace]

17. "couldn't that same mercy be given to every person" yes, exactly.

Let all the judges of the land, when handing down sentences to all offenders, say: "We want to look forward. Retribution will only entangle us in the past. We know that because these laws exist you won't break them again; so we will look forward with compassion, and trust you to do the right thing from here on in.

That would be the day, eh

[ejbr]

10. Really Gibbs?

If they think they are making friends on the right while keeping us in check on the left, they're fucked in the head.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

11. I am having Tony Snow flashbacks n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

12. It could very well be those memos are legally accurate and could be argued and lost in court

The law is not always pretty and Bush had the rottingest lawyers in the land - and perhaps they indeed wrote a legally accurate accounting of what defined the absolute fringe of torture - in legal terms. I'm not for this, of course, but the Bush lawyers did this with a conniving plan to legalize the acts they committed - and perhaps they would actually hold up in court - and perhaps this was already tested behind the scenes with the Supreme Court being asked on this matter.

We are not seeing everything that goes on in an administration. I do know that this President would not do something he loathed unless it was an impossible task to overcome. It makes no sense otherwise.

[Better Believe It]

13. It makes perfect sense. You don't fu*k with the CIA, not even the President

[Lautremont]

18. Why?

[Butch350]

14. Who gives a rats ass if CRIMINALS were tortured?!

Torturing has been going on since man has fighting each other in WAR. It's life.

What ever happened to talking about health care, green jobs and such.

Two things that's not gonna change. One, torture and two, big brother spying into your life.

[Voice for Peace]

15. yeah, criminals who hadn't been charged with a crime or represented by counsel

and many of whom were not criminals, no doubt, no doubt. the vileness of torturing anybody is indefensible. because even if the person is evil, you become evil. then you too deserve to be tortured.

[winyanstaz]

19. So prove they were criminals that were tortured.

You cannot. This means it is just as likely innocent people were tortured.
Secondly, if they can get away with doing this to people we don't even know are innocent or not..then they can do it to you.

[Seldona]

22. Me, for one.

Are you seriously defending torture and illegal spying? Are we being punked?

[Duende azul]

24. Only to get this straight. Are you advocating torture?

[slipslidingaway]

20. Here is the link to the transcript....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4-20-09/

"Q So I understand, you're saying that people in the CIA who followed through in what they were told was legal, they should not be prosecuted. But why not the Bush administration lawyers who, in the eyes of a lot of your supporters on the left, twisted the law -- why are they not being held accountable?

MR. GIBBS: The President is focused on looking forward, that's why."


The entire exchange...

"Q Robert, on the President's visit to the CIA today -- he took the extraordinary step of releasing these documents on alleged torture last week; and people like General Hayden alleging that this makes America less safe. I know you and other administration officials obviously disagree with that point, but why run the risk of making America less safe in their eyes when you're not going to take the extra step of actually holding Bush administration officials accountable?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's understand first of all the background of this, Ed. There was a Freedom of Information Act case that the legal team here and at other agencies were very convinced was not winnable; that there wasn't going to be a way, in any way, shape or form, to continue to hide these memos.

I said this in response to question I believe either Thursday or Friday. What makes this country -- what makes this country less safe is not the existence of enhanced interrogation techniques contained in a memo; it's that the world sees America and the values it holds up differently, because it employed those techniques.

The President -- and I think what's most important to understand is the President of the United States, in one of his very first acts as President, firmly banned the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in dealing with prisoners.

Q You talk about America's image around the world, the President has talked a lot about that, as well. What signal does it send the world if, potentially, people in the Bush administration -- I stress "potentially" -- broke the law? This administration is now saying, we're too busy, there's a lot on our plate, obviously, this argument is out there, but we're not going to --

MR. GIBBS: Listen, I don't --

Q -- but you said we can't look back, we're going to look forward.

MR. GIBBS: Right, but, Ed --

Q What signals does that send?

MR. GIBBS: The administration didn't say they were too busy, Ed. The administration on the second day of a very busy day in a very busy week and very busy 100 days banned the technique.

Q Right.

MR. GIBBS: Okay? I mean, let's understand --

Q But people broke the law before it. You're just turning the page.

MR. GIBBS: No, no, no -- give me a chance to answer your multitude of questions.

Q Well, but it's my real question.

MR. GIBBS: I understand, and I'm glad you've rephrased it. The President took the extraordinary step of stopping these techniques from ever being used -- again, as part of his administration. The President does believe and the Attorney General said quite clearly that those that believed in good faith that these techniques had been declared legal by the Department of Justice should not be prosecuted.

The President also believes that rather than looking backward and fighting this backward, that it's important to move our country forward. That's what he signaled by banning the use of these techniques, and that's where his focus is.

Q So I understand, you're saying that people in the CIA who followed through in what they were told was legal, they should not be prosecuted. But why not the Bush administration lawyers who, in the eyes of a lot of your supporters on the left, twisted the law -- why are they not being held accountable?

MR. GIBBS: The President is focused on looking forward, that's why.

Q A follow-up on that? You just reiterated the President's comments that he won't -- that harsh interrogation techniques won't be used. But there is a Guantanamo detainee who is currently being detained, who last week made a telephone call out of Guantanamo alleging that he is beaten almost on a daily basis and tear gas has been dumped on him -- Mohammed el Gharani..."

[Hulk]

21. This sounds desperate....but,

Maybe, and I hope maybe President Obama and his administration are waiting until after a few important issues are dealt with that are going to require the support of a few moderate repugs; and that this can wait until after health care, immigration and the economy have been dealt with before alienating the "party of no"????

I'm hoping this is NOT the end of this subject. Keep it alive, but don't expect it to blossom NOW! Could this be?? I sure as hell hope so!!

[RufusTFirefly]

23. You're right. It sounds desperate.

The only possible positive scenario I can see from this (and I really doubt it) is that Pres. Obama is playing Good Cop and that Attorney General Holder will play the Bad Cop.

Thanks to the nightmare of the Bush years, some of us may have forgotten that the Attorney General is the lawyer for the American People not for the President and that there have been numerous instances historically where the POTUS and AG have been at odds as a result.

In this scenario (and again, I concede that it is probably a fantasy), Holder, as a representative of the People, can choose to push forward, ostensibly against Pres. Obama's wishes, thus keeping the President above the fray.

But I doubt it.

I think we've already been given the actual answer: You don't fuck with the CIA.