Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that Obama released the torture memos

[lunatica]

when he didn't have to? It's like he's handing them to us with one hand and yet he's holding his other hand behind his back by VERY OBVIOUSLY being rather uncharacteristically cagey about prosecutions. He stirs the pot even though he could have never released the memos. He could easily have just moved on and ignored the whole thing. He could haves sealed them and said they're a threat to National Security. We wouldn't like it but his popularity doesn't hinge on releasing the memos. The more I see how he steps slightly out of character by deliberately phrasing his responses on the torture questions in a rather vague way (every time he says almost the identical words, as if he's deliberately parsing his sentence) the more I think he's hiding something about the torture issue, but not only from us.

Perhaps he's doing what prosecutors who want the mafia leadership do. They make deals with the underlings to get them to cooperate and hand over their bosses. This makes sense to me, because the claim that President Obama is just another liar isn't convincing to me. Not because I refuse to see fault in him, but because there are dots here that aren't visible yet.

[NightWatcher]

1. He's not going to prosecute, but who knows maybe public outcry would cause Congress

to do something. I'm not saying, I'm just saying

[lunatica]

4. Maybe that's what he wants by stirring the pot with memos

That makes much more sense to me. Bush was always good about being kept out of the fray, by seeming to be above it all, even to playing the clown. Maybe Obama is hoping to get us to demand prosecution and then he can say that it's not up to him. That's always a political ploy, and it works many times.

[rucky]

2. As best as I can read between the lines...

I think he's going to go after Gonzo.

[napi21]

3. I think he doesn't want to put himself in the middle of that mess.

Release the papers, and see who else does what. It could be congress, the DOJ, or even a foreign country. We'll see.

[lunatica]

8. Spain has backed off from prosecuting and I think it's because

the US has secretly told them we're planning to do it. For all we know this may be a really bad moment to say anything as they may be making deals with CIA agents as we speak.

[babylonsister]

5. Have you seen this from Jane Hamsher?

She and Greenwald think there's a 'method to his madness'...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x441483

[malaise]

6. So do I

This is not going away. Bush, Cheney et al are not above the law.
I'm betting Cheney croaks soon.

[MikeE]

27. I also think it may be a way to

open it up to the world courts, so those people who participated in torture from other countries in other countries can be prosecuted as well. Just a thought.

[LakeSamish706]

7. It makes me wonder if he is trying to get the American people to stand up and ...

demand investigations and prosecutions.

[Duende azul]

57. They better do.

But looking how with DU for a start there seem to be to much rationalizations for the "pardons" how do you think this will happen?

[TheKentuckian]

9. I don't get how the release of these memos is not seen as a huge win.

Why do the enraged fail to see this as something other than business as usual? The OP is correct that he could have much more easily sat on the ball on this.

[monmouth]

10. Great OP and you may be onto something. I just don't buy that he

would allow torture to go un-prosecuted.. I was surprised at Keith the other night when he jumped on the Turley train. Neither of them are paying attention to this man and his methods. Great post, thanks.

[lunatica]

14. But Olbermann and Turley are doing a good job of making people angry

as well as keeping us informed about the lack of prosecution. I'm very glad they're speaking out because it has a way of keeping us in the loop and even educating us on Constitutional law. I think they're not attacking Obama on a personal level. They're fighting for the Constitution by being critical of Obama's actions which appear to be unconstitutional. They probably wouldn't be privy to anything in the Administration but feel they must speak out.

[monmouth]

18. Good point. I was a little surprised with POTUS's response. But now

that it's really out in the open, I'm thinking Leahy and others will go on their own with a secret blessing from POTUS...

[Canuckistanian]

11. Yesterday's date wasn't a sudden decision

It was the final deadline for the government to respond to the ACLU FOIA request.

True, the DOJ could have stalled indefinitely, but it would have looked really bad for them.

[Fleshdancer]

12. I think he's fishing for bipartisan support for prosecution

Doing it this way allows him to go forward without it being called a witch hunt and railroading the rest of his agenda...at least this is my hope.

[s-cubed]

13. Until most Americans accept the idea that many people

were tortured, some to death, and that women and children were raped, no prosecution can happen. So, by releasing the memos, some more Americans start to hear about it and talk about it. Next will come the photos and videos - the ones that made rummy sick. Drip, drip, drip, until it is impossible not to prosecute. The fact that Obama says the interrogators will not be prosecuted may not hold as things come out. But right now, as I visit my repub mother in red state Oklahoma, I can assure you that the time is not ripe. But, what we can do, we must do, is keep the pressure on the white house and the congress to investigate.

[lunatica]

17. Yes, it's quite possible that the timing is wrong right now

Which is why it makes sense that he seems to be stalling. At least that's what I'm trying to say in this thread. It's those dots we don't know about yet

[Warpy]

15. He needs to build a consensus

and I'm afraid half the people in this country still aren't in favor of prosecuting the dirtbags they were conned into voting for.

Don't expect things to happen overnight on that front. Remember, it's taken decades to get a monster like Pinochet. Likely it will take many years for a popular movement to indict the last administration for war crimes and other crimes to build.

Yes, there is ample reason to try the lot of them, the abrogation of the Geneva Conventions is certainly enough in and of itself.

They know that, which is why we're being shown people getting water poured on them in the good puppy media right now.

It's not going to work. We can be very patient, but we will bring them to justice eventually.

May they live their rotten lives in terror in the meantime.

[lamp_shade]

16. Great OP and great responses. Imagine the President proclaiming "Off with their heads"?

Not a good idea... at all.

[imdjh]

19. The election is over. We won!

Bush and Cheney are not going to jail, they never were. No one whose name we're likely to know is going to jail for torture. It's a great election tool, it gets people fired up, but it was never going to happen. Keep it up and something will happen- some poor schmoe and schmoette will be tried, convicted, and sent to jail to be sacrificed for the public's demand for satisfaction. And won't we be proud of ourselves when that happens?

Jesus, this is tiresome. No, it's worse than that- it's Republican. It's exactly what the Republicans wanted to do to the Clintons. Not satisfied at having won the White House, they wanted "Klintoon and Hitlery brought to justice." Don't kid yourself, there really were Republicans out there who thought that Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster and the Bill and HIllary had done everything they had accused them of doing.

[lunatica]

21. So you think the torture memos are just fluffy talking points?

That they aren't any more important than the disproven character assassination attacks at Hillary for Vince Foster's death? In your mind they're the exact same thing?

[imdjh]

22. It might be political currency

As distasteful as the idea is, politicians trade in their own currency. We mortals see important issues, they see bargaining chips for the issues they consider important to their careers.

[lunatica]

23. Hillary is now Secretary of State. You think the Republicans got her?

I sure don't. If anything they made her even stronger and more determined to win her battles.

[imdjh]

24. She's fabulous

[lostnfound]

62. They didn't write memos about it. False comparison. nt

[chill_wind]

20. His decisive action is what speaks volumes to me.

.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5481678#5485042

[alfredo]

25. When Spain backed off and said they will wait for us to act, that made me

think that Obama is cooling his heels until his agenda has been passed or rejected. I'd say the best time would be after the mid terms. If we play our cards right, we can win a Senate seat in Kentucky. Bunning is either quitting or will have a well funded challenge in his primaries.

I don't know about the other states, but all we need to do is pick up one more seat and the Reps can go fuck themselves.

Jack Conway has already announced his intentions to run against Bunning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtgECkIPaL8

Dan Mongiardo, a Blue Dog Dem is also running. He's Lt Gov now, so he has good name recognition. Too conservative for me.

[pat_k]

26. "the dots" have been visible years while Obama has parroted the memes

. . .and the rationalizations that kept impeachment "off the table." Like the intolerably immoral proposition that they mustn't defend the Constitution because it would be "too divisive."

. . .impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction

Like the shameful sham that bushncheney's program of torture wasn't a "grave breach"

I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority.breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority.

Like meaningless meme "look forward, not back" or the lunatic notion that "nothing would be gained" by prosecuting the war criminals because the crimes are "past." (Guess we shouldn't be prosecuting anyone for anything since all crimes committed are by definition "past.")

. . .nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. ...

There is ONLY one lawful, rational, moral option: Immediate prosecution of must prosecution of Bush, Cheney, and the other officials responsible for implementing and rubber stamping "the program" and immediate prosecution of the employees who refused to say "no" when asked to commit outrages upon the persons in their custody. To do anything less makes the USA a nation that commits and sanctions war crimes and harbors war criminals.

As the impeachophobic Democrats in Congress abused their power to keep impeachment "off the table" we heard similar theories of "secret plans" on DU. It's understandable that one would grasp for any straw to explain such intolerable, immoral, mind-boggling dereliction, but it was a fantasy then. It is a fantasy now.

Even if somehow true, one can take no comfort it in it. Every single day he refuses to call for immediate prosecution, whatever the lame excuse, the Constitution remains in breach, and the USA is violating the treaties that are part and parcel of that document as "the supreme law of the land."

Each day he refuses to do what is demanded by the law and his oath there is no true America. To keep trying to "make progress" when the bedrock of the law has been rendered meaningless is like trying to build a castle on sand -- and will be about as lasting.

[lunatica]

32. It's what you say that will make it happen. It's really up to us

and I think we're going to make it happen. Not immediately, but we'll do it.

[pat_k]

55. I think so too. . .

BTW, somehow when I edited my post it posted the revision as a new post. Strange. Apologies for any confusion.

[earth mom]

58. Great post-it should be an OP.

:thumbsup:

[MadMaddie]

28. You are on to something.

I think people are so used to having a diwit as President (*) that they have not made the mental leap to the new President and his strategies.

This is not what it appears. If he had meant for there to be absolutely no prosecutions he would NOT have released the memos, case closed. But he didn't do that, the memos are beyond shocking. They are a game changer. This is actual evidence that the Hague can use and the victims can use.

They have the signatures of the lawyers that wrote them and the people that approved them.

It is true that some CIA agents may walk but how is this different from the government turning Gang members or Mafia members into witnesses (and not prosecuting them) in order for them to go after the leadership of these organizations? It's not....

[pat_k]

29. Trying to connect the "dots" of the DC group think that Obama parrots

. . . is an exercise in futility. No logic or reason can explain his dereliction or irreconcilable acts because the Group Think driving it is not rational. Group Think is not Thought at all.

You don't deal with group think by trying to "figure it out." You confront it. You confront the irreconcilable "positions." You refuse to allow the mindless memes go by unchallenged. You just keep http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3833613&mesg_id=3833776">hammering away for as long as it takes.

Obama has been perfectly consistent in his inexplicable dereliction. He is still parroting the same mindless memes and rationalizations that he and the rest of the so-called "leadership" invoked to protect the war criminals from impeachment.

Like the intolerably immoral proposition that we mustn't defend the Constitution and enforce the law because it would be "too divisive."

. . if we began impeachment proceedings we will be engulfed in more of the politics that has made Washington dysfunction

Like the shameful sham that bushncheney's program of torture wasn't a grave breach of "presidential authority."

I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority.

Like the empty-headed, knee jerk "look forward, not back" refrain or the lunatic notion that "nothing would be gained" by prosecuting the war criminals because the crimes are "past." (Guess we shouldn't be prosecuting anyone for anything since all crimes committed are by definition "past.")

. . .nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. ...

With White House war crimes committed in plain sight; with White House war criminals proudly "confessing" their crimes, the stubborn refusal to prosecute is utterly inexplicable. It's understandable that one would grasp for any straw to explain such intolerable, immoral, mind-boggling dereliction. As the impeachophobic Democrats in Congress abused their power to keep impeachment "off the table" we heard similar theories of "secret plans" on DU. It was a fantasy then. It is a fantasy now.

There can be no comfort in any of the convoluted rationalizations for dereliction that could be rolling around in Obama's head. Every single day he refuses to call for immediate prosecution, whatever the lame excuse, the Constitution remains in breach, and the USA is violating the treaties that are part and parcel of that document as "the supreme law of the land."

The only way to preserve our government is to immediately prosecute Bush and Cheney; the White House and Executive Agency officials responsible for implementing and rubber stamping war crimes (e.g., Addington, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, Haynes, Hayden); and the employees who refused to say "no" when asked to commit outrages upon the persons in their custody. To do anything less makes the USA a nation that commits and sanctions war crimes and harbors war criminals. (Before Obama was

Each day he refuses to do what is demanded by the law and his oath there is no true America. To keep trying to "make progress" when the bedrock of the law has been rendered meaningless is like trying to build a castle on quicksand -- and will be about as lasting.

[lunatica]

34. The dots may not be what we want to hear, but they're there

And it wasn't all that hard to connect the dots with the Bush administration. Almost nothing that's a great revelation today wasn't known by us. We, those of us who cared to were able to connect the dots years ago. And evil thinking is still thinking. None of these people are beyond our ability to connect the dots.

[pat_k]

53. But, looking to "connect the dots" to explain Obama's mind-boggling refusal to prosecute. . .

. . . is an exercise in futility.

You are absolutely right, there is nothing actually "new" in the memos. Any previously unknown or unconfirmed details they contain don't add anything to the substance of the case against Bush, Cheney, Addington, Yoo, Haynes, et al. We had the facts necessary to make an utterly indefensible case against the war criminals long ago.

It is the attempt to "connect dots" to explain Obama's irreconcilable acts I take issue with. The thing is, Obama has been perfectly consistent in his inexplicable dereliction. He is still parroting the same mindless memes and rationalizations that he and the rest of the so-called "leadership" invoked to protect the war criminals from impeachment.

We are dealing with behavior driven by beltway group think -- and group think is not "think." There is no need to look for "the dots" that can be logically connected to explain Obama's mind-boggling dereliction because they simply aren't there. (more on group think http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5447507&mesg_id=5448828">here)

None of the rationalizations or memes uttered to "explain" the refusal to prosecute stand up against scrutiny. There is no secret plan or secret knowledge that can excuse their failure.

I think we are most effective if we treat the dereliction as an illness akin to a phobia or addiction. We can treat the symptoms -- the denial, the euphemisms, the irrational rationalizations, the irreconcilable "positions" -- even if we don't fully understand the causal forces. And "treatment" consists of confronting and challenging the bullshit; confronting their excuses; and confronting them with questions -- and follow ups -- that force them to actually hear themselves and attempt to defend their indefensible memes.

[lunatica]

64. Connecting the dots is not an idle way to pass time as you infer

It's a way of using rational thinking when we're confronted with a puzzle. I don't think treating inconsistent behavior as a phobia or a mental illness right off the bat is the correct thing to do. Attempting to 'understand' something does not equate with 'being understanding'.

You could be right, and I could be right. It's called conversation between rational beings who want to get to the bottom of some issue.

[ProgressIn2008]

30. No. We're way past wishful thinking -- we're at the point of deciding if we're a nation of laws

We haven't the luxury of protecting our delicate sensibilities from brutal truths. We're down to the nitty gritty: are we a nation of laws or are we not?

To hell with dots and secret plans and eleventh dimensional chess. Are we a nation of laws or not?

If we are not, what are we? Who will have the courage to say it?

[lunatica]

36. I think we had that dilemma when the Supreme Court anointed Bush

I've been saying the same thing since December of 2000. We're either a nation of Constitutional laws or we aren't. We're still weighing that issue and the jury is still out. Are we a Nation of Laws? We aren't right now. But things change. Things always change.

[and-justice-for-all]

31. Yeahm someone doing the right things is always shocking...

specially after 8 years of tyranny.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. He released them under pressure by the ACLU. He gave the thugs a free pass for political reasons.

Not only do Bush/Cheney have blood on their hands but there are a lot of accessories, in both parties, who qualify as accomplices in the crimes.

[lunatica]

38. Obama can stand pressure. All he had to say was "National Security" and

the memos wouldn't have been released.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Apparently, his taste for pressure failed him this time.

In that he did release the memos, under pressure, and then caved in giving the criminals a "get out of jail free card" as the ACLU put it.

[lunatica]

41. 'apparently' is the key word

He's not under pressure. Look at him. He can invoke presidential privilege any time he wants to. All he has to do is say that the memos are dangerous for National Security and that's the end of that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Then, why didn't he? Rather than give a pre-pardon to the criminals?

The effect is the same.

If he's not under pressure, why did he give the pardons? Thus letting not only the little fish escape, but giving them no reason to blow the whistle on their superiors who ordered them to torture.

[stillcool]

46. Do you know if any of the little fish...

have already been talking? Why would a little fish say anything if it would be facing prosecution. Especially since so many people were involved in or around the interrogation of any one individual.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Why would they say anything if they weren't facing prosecution?

Prosecutor: OK. You're free to go and face no charges. Now, would you like to spill the beans?
Little Fish: Sure!

Or:

Prosecutor: If you don't spill the beans, little fish, you're sorry ass is going to prison.
Little Fish: Nah. I'll go to prison.

My money's on the second scenario. Alas, it isn't going to happen because the Little Fish already got a pass.

[lunatica]

48. I already said I didn't know if anyone was talking or even

if there's a strategy. I'm just saying that his rather evasive answers to the questions seem to hide something. And in the case of the CIA, there's probably a very good reason why he won't 'out' them. Remember what happened with Valerie Plame? People were killed and the only group who knows how many are the CIA. They obviously find it too dangerous to just 'out' active CIA agents.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. So, we shouldn't try criminals because it's dangerous to them?

Your argument doesn't make sense. The torturers should be tried because they are accused, on a lot of evidence, of being criminals. You're acting like they were innocent bystanders, "just following orders". If the accusations are false, let it come out in a trial. That's why we have a justice system with courts rather than a monarchy where the monarch decides who it's convenient to try.

[stillcool]

52. First of all I don't believe..

that anyone was 'pardoned'. How can you be pardoned when you haven't been charged with a crime? How do you commit a crime, when what you're doing has been legalized by your government? There has to be some kind of framework to put all this in. I don't know what it is. But I don't think we're anywhere close to being there yet. There is more to be revealed. I hope those that are free to tell what they know will do so. I suppose I've lived too long, and have seen too many fucked up people, including myself, to think throwing every person involved in any way in jail is any panacea.

[lunatica]

54. No. Dangerous to us.

The CIA are not nice people. They don't have to answer to anyone, but they do have to go undercover and deal with others to gather intelligence. It would be a danger to us for that reason. Who's going to keep track of the enemies of this country? Or do you think they're not important?

I think you're deliberately pretending to miss my point. Which is your prerogative, but it's pointless. I've made a good argument and you just refuse to consider what I say. We're wasting each others time.

[Duende azul]

59. A danger to you yes. But other than you imagine.

People who torture are dehumanized. If you let these people run free in public without proper treatment what would you expect?
People trained to cause pain to other human beings. Why should they miraculously regain the respect for the dignity and live of others?

And if you want to prosper as a nation by their deeds - well, you own the deeds. You declare the whole nation just a huge mafia family who needs their thugs and hitmen.

[lamp_shade]

43. No he didn't. He's a pretty smart cookie. He timed the doc release to look

like "ACLU deadline pressure". Nicely done.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Rigggghhht.

And, he pardoned the criminals because.........?????

[Hekate]

35. President Obama is a very cagey man. He will deliver the goods in time. nt

[lunatica]

40. Or maybe we will

He really doesn't have to do anything but let us be Americans. We need to put pressure on Congress because they're a separate branch and have their own power aside from the President. It hard to remember, I know. after the cowardly and rubberstamping last few Congresses but Congress has the right to investigate absolutely anything it wants to and the President can't stop them.

[Hekate]

51. Yes. Perhaps he hopes to nudge the voters into leaning hard on their congresscritters....

Although a certain segment of DUers doesn't seem to remember, the President can't do this by himself.

Hekate

[Politicalboi]

37. Spain is probably

Interested in those papers too. The more President Obama lets out of the bag something will be done about it.

[kentuck]

44. I think he may have done it for a couple of reasons...

First of all, to all those tea-baggers that were out to get him at their puppet demonstrations, he wanted to let them know that he still has some bullets in his guns and he's not afraid to use them. They attack him and he brings out the torture memos. I'm sure he has a lot more ammunition?

Also, since he didn't have to release the memos, there must have been a reason for doing so? Obama is not the type of person that makes hasty decisions. I think he is using the memos as leverage for something else that he wants to get passed, maybe health care? He can make it very uncomfortable for the Republicans if they continue on their divisive ways...

[lunatica]

49. Prosecuting CIA agents will 'out' them just like Valerie Plame was 'outed'

Two bad things will happen if agents are outed the way she was
1. Anyone they know or deal with in other countries and this one will be murdered and all their undercover and secret work will be finished and we don't know how dangerous that could be.
2. It would cripple us in the Intelligence gathering of real terrorist groups. It could cause a real problem in National Security and create real danger in the world for all Americans as well as anyone working with Americans.

[Duende azul]

56. Excuse me. "real terrorist groups"?

Don´t you think this characterization applies to the agency?

And know what? I want their "undercover and secret work" be finished.
That´s all.

[lunatica]

63. I don't disagree with that

And yes, I think the CIA is a terrorist group. It's always been one. But outing their agents puts us in danger, whether we like it or not

[Supersedeas]

60. What is cagey about the prosecutions issue? The Military Commissions Act is clear, crystal clear

on its face.

[kiranon]

61. No. n/t

[Psychic Consortium]

65. "He plants, he cultivates, he harvests..."

on his time line, in his way.
Now he gives us the facts.
Then it is up to the American people to decide what to do.

[GeorgeGist]

66. He was under court order ...

to release them. But of course Sovereign Immunity makes justice moot, where POTUS' are concerned.