Should Obama support investigating torture?

[PLC1]

Pressure Grows to Investigate Interrogations

WASHINGTON — Pressure mounted on President Obama on Monday for more thorough investigation into harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects under the Bush administration, even as he tried to reassure the Central Intelligence Agency that it would not be blamed for following legal advice. Mr. Obama said it was time to admit “mistakes” and “move forward.” But there were signs that he might not be able to avoid a protracted inquiry into the use of interrogation techniques that the president’s top aides and many critics say crossed the line into torture.

How long will he be able to walk this tightrope:

 

[The Scotsman]

Instead of this administration navelgazing the obscurities of who, why and how legal advice on torture was defined, might I suggest they ponder the point of why the intelligence services had to turn to torture in the first place!

Perhaps their time and resources would be better employed in looking at how to rectify that situation and fund the CIA et al so that in future they have the resources and manpower which allows them to gather useful and accurate data rather than having to revert to torture in order to obtain baseline intelligence which is of little practical use!

 

[AgainstTheMachine]

As the title says: Should Obama support investigating torture?

He should do that right after he investigates all lies from Politicians

When a politician lies to us - that is real TORTURE.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Instead of this administration navelgazing the obscurities of who, why and how legal advice on torture was defined, might I suggest they ponder the point of why the intelligence services had to turn to torture in the first place!

Quite simply....the last-eight-years was THE final-opportunity for The Chickenhawks to prove they really-were bad@sses (as-long-as they could find someone else to do their dirty-work).....even though they hauled-@SS when their opportunity to serve arrived!!

As-far-as navelgazing goes, Obama's doing what I'd HOPED he would....turn the local torture-advisors over to The Department Of Justice!!! After all....they ARE American-citizens....and, it's ACCOUNTABILITY-TIME!!

*

 

[The Scotsman]

As-far-as navelgazing goes, Obama's doing what I'd HOPED he would....turn the local torture-advisors over to The Department Of Justice!!! After all....they ARE American-citizens....and, it's ACCOUNTABILITY-TIME

.......well I'm glad you feel you're getting something out of this but, just for my own edification, whilst the horses disappear over the horizon and you're putting the padlocks back on the barn doors please explain why you feel that witchhunts in such circumstances achieve anything other than perhaps salve a few consciences?

Look the best thing to do is what has already been done......change the working practises as required and use the money that would have been wasted chasing bolted horses on conducting a review on the intelligence services and the administrations intelligence requirements and the manner in which that information is gathered and processed.........

 

[Andy]

Quite simply....the last-eight-years was THE final-opportunity for The Chickenhawks to prove they really-were bad@sses (as-long-as they could find someone else to do their dirty-work).....even though they hauled-@SS when their opportunity to serve arrived!!

As-far-as navelgazing goes, Obama's doing what I'd HOPED he would....turn the local torture-advisors over to The Department Of Justice!!! After all....they ARE American-citizens....and, it's ACCOUNTABILITY-TIME!!

[/CENTER]

Ok, we've heard the idiocy claim. Let's hear the truth of the matter.

One deferment was that he turned 26 in 1967, at the time the draft started picking up. Oh how horrible! Why everyone that turned 26 was a horrid draft dodger. How dare they turn 26!

Another was that he had a daughter from his marriage. Darn that fatherhood crap, trying to raise a daughter and all! All fathers with daughters are horrible draft dodgers!

Finely, before America entered the war, he switched from a community college to a university. Of course each school counts for a deferment. Darn those school switching students! Every student that switches schools is a horrible draft dodging bastard!

Lastly, Cheney applied and was accepted to grad school. His fifth deferment. Darn those grad school students! All grad school students are draft dodging scumbags!

Ironically, the person making those accusations was J. Kerry. Of course Kerry not only tried to get deferments, but also tried to be exempted from the draft all together. Then when he had to go, he successfully reduced his tour to only four months. Now he walks around spouting off to everyone on the planet how he went to Vietnam.

So because he went to a community college, to a university, to a grad school, got married and had a child, and because he dared to turn 26... Cheney is an evil draft dodger!

If this is the argument of the left... grow up!

 

[Andy]

On what legal basis is he going to investigate this?

 

[Pandora]

On what legal basis is he going to investigate this?

Why lies of course. What else have they ever had?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Look the best thing to do is what has already been done......change the working practises as required and use the money that would have been wasted chasing bolted horses on conducting a review on the intelligence services and the administrations intelligence requirements and the manner in which that information is gathered and processed.........

Yeah.....that pretty-much covers those who participated, but....where's the compensation for those who were tortured?

They're expected to get-over-it??​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Cheney is an evil draft dodger!

....Who, now.....LOVES War!!!!!

Yeah.....no conflict, there....


​

 

[Popeye]

Ironically, the person making those accusations was J. Kerry. Of course Kerry not only tried to get deferments, but also tried to be exempted from the draft all together. Then when he had to go, he successfully reduced his tour to only four months. Now he walks around spouting off to everyone on the planet how he went to Vietnam.

A least Kerry went to Vietnam...something that can't be said for the deferment happy Cheney or the AWOL king, George Bush

So because he went to a community college, to a university, to a grad school, got married and had a child, and because he dared to turn 26... Cheney is an evil draft dodger!

chicken hawk

someone who avoids going to war or fighting in his lifetime, but still advocates that the war is necessary.

Sounds like the definition of "Republican" too...

 

[PLC1]

Sounds like the definition of "Republican" too...

Do you mean like the well known Republican president, Lyndon Johnson?

 

[Andy]

A least Kerry went to Vietnam...something that can't be said for the deferment happy Cheney or the AWOL king, George Bush



chicken hawk

someone who avoids going to war or fighting in his lifetime, but still advocates that the war is necessary.

Sounds like the definition of "Republican" too...

We've already covered that. Bush wasn't AWOL. The military doesn't show him being AWOL. Further, are you telling me that the hundreds of other people who also benefited from the same deferments were also dodgers?

 

[BigRob]

My question is who is Obama going to investigate? He either has to go after those that actually carried out the act (which he stated he will not do) or he has to go after those that ordered it to begin with (Ie the President). That, in my view, is simply not going to happen.

This whole notion that we are going to go after Bush officials that wrote legal opinions justifying torture is simply moronic. What crime did they commit? Is writing an opinion a crime? No. If you go after them for this, you effectively have to go after free speech, and you also have to go after the bureaucracy, which is to important to lose over this.

Not to mention, it will be political suicide for many Democrats in Congress who were briefed on what was occurring and said they had no problem with it. Also, not to mention, a large chunk of the of the legal reasoning behind "torture" came from Clinton OLC decisions. Are we going to go after him now too? I think not.

No one is going to be prosecuted over this, and no one should be.


Here is another question however. A friend of mine commented (about nuclear weapons) that "just because you take away the targeting ability, does not mean the targets disappear." This is a interesting point to apply to terrorism cases. Just because you have ended "torture" (which was ended in 2006 anyway after the Supreme Court said stop) the problem still exists that you enacted the policy for in the first place. So what is the alternative solution? That is the real question. Clearly civilian trials in US courts should not be a practical response to this, so what is the response?

 

[Andy]

My question is who is Obama going to investigate? He either has to go after those that actually carried out the act (which he stated he will not do) or he has to go after those that ordered it to begin with (Ie the President). That, in my view, is simply not going to happen.

This whole notion that we are going to go after Bush officials that wrote legal opinions justifying torture is simply moronic. What crime did they commit? Is writing an opinion a crime? No. If you go after them for this, you effectively have to go after free speech, and you also have to go after the bureaucracy, which is to important to lose over this.

Not to mention, it will be political suicide for many Democrats in Congress who were briefed on what was occurring and said they had no problem with it. Also, not to mention, a large chunk of the of the legal reasoning behind "torture" came from Clinton OLC decisions. Are we going to go after him now too? I think not.

No one is going to be prosecuted over this, and no one should be.


Here is another question however. A friend of mine commented (about nuclear weapons) that "just because you take away the targeting ability, does not mean the targets disappear." This is a interesting point to apply to terrorism cases. Just because you have ended "torture" (which was ended in 2006 anyway after the Supreme Court said stop) the problem still exists that you enacted the policy for in the first place. So what is the alternative solution? That is the real question. Clearly civilian trials in US courts should not be a practical response to this, so what is the response?

Good point... so since I wrote opinions about how justified water boarding was.... does that mean Obama could come get me too?

I've asked that second question, a million times. Liberals just don't have an answer. They never do. What do we do to make terrorist talk? How do we get the information from them, that we need to save lives? Force them to watch Barney 24/7? What?

They never have an answer to that. They just try and falsely claim it doesn't work.