Obama releases the "Torture Memos" - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-15-2009, 05:05 PM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:43 AM
i think it's clear that Obama doesn't want his presidency dominated by this. what has actually been done by Cheney is vastly worse than was done in Watergate and he should be locked up for the rest of his life. but actually getting to the depths of this would take years of public trials.

he has an economy to fix, Afghanistan is collapsing, so is Pakistan, Iraq is an impeding disaster.

so on the list of ways that the Bush administration completely and totally fucked this country, it falls pretty low.

and that's the cold hard political reality. it's dispiriting, and disappointing, but that's how it is.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2009, 05:09 PM   #227
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:43 AM
only about 20 of the 240+ Gitmo detainees

and torture confessions will not be used


Bush - Cheney set these up guarantee an outcome

much like they did "the evidence" for the Iraq War

hopefully these trials will be a bit more transparent and all the defense councils won't quit in protest.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2009, 05:19 PM   #228
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:43 AM
there's also the McChrystal approach.

as has been said -- he literally knows where the bodies have been buried.

and he's now in charge of Afghanistan.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2009, 01:53 AM   #229
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Bybee and Yoo, who? What about the third in line to the presidency?

Well that sounds encouraging.


The CIA disputes Pelosi's claims?
Pelosi: I Was Told Interrogation Methods Were Lawful - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

I guess the "wrong CIA memos" are beginning to get released, Nancy?
Pelosi's claims could be legit.

Florida's Graham Backs Pelosi On CIA Briefings : NPR
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2009, 10:33 AM   #230
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:43 AM
I don't believe Nancy Pelosi-why was she so flustered and nervous? She's never like that.

Editor's note: Fawaz A. Gerges holds the Christian A. Johnson Chair in Middle Eastern Studies and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College. His most recent book is "Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy."

(CNN) -- Justifying his dramatic reversal of the decision to release photos showing abuse of detainees by U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama argued publication would "further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger."

In fact, world opinion, particularly that of Muslims, would likely view the release of these horror images as representing a rupture for the better in American politics and foreign policy. America would be seen as reclaiming its high moral compass and affirming its respect for human dignity.

Taking ownership of and responsibility for the Bush administration's actions, horrible and painful as they are, will reinforce Obama's break with his predecessor and his new message to the U.S. public and international community: The United States is a good citizen of the world, a nation of laws that fully complies with the laws of war. In the eyes of friends and foes, the president's new message would gain more traction and credibility.

There is no denying that in the short term the release of these horror images would provide more ammunition to extremists like al Qaeda and like-minded groups at war with the United States. Other hardliners would use and abuse the detainee photos to portray the United States as waging a war against Islam and Muslims. But there is little the United States could do to appease al Qaeda and similar militants. Most are beyond redemption.

The primary target audience is mainstream Muslim public opinion. There is plenty of evidence indicating that Obama's overtures to Muslims have begun to pay off. In polls and my own interviews, more and more Arabs and Muslims say they think very highly of the young president and believe he will have a positive impact on the Middle East and relations between the United States and the region.

The findings of a recent McClatchy/Ipsos poll show a reservoir of good will toward Obama, while negative attitudes towards American foreign policy persist. In Jordan, 58 percent of citizens have a favorable opinion of him, followed by 53 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 52 percent in the United Arab Emirates. Obama's popularity dips to 47 percent in Kuwait and 43 percent in Lebanon -- but in none of these countries, was Obama's unfavorable rating higher than his favorable one.

In contrast, only 38 percent of Saudis have a favorable view of the United States, followed by 36 percent of Jordanians, 34 percent of UAE residents, 31 percent of Lebanese and 22 percent of Egyptians.

The critical goodwill gap between Arabs' view of Obama and the United States has to do with the credibility of the messenger, President Obama. While former President Bush is loathed and mistrusted in the greater Middle East, Obama is seen as a breath of fresh air reflecting what they see as America's new humane face. The credibility of the messenger is critical and any decision, like blocking the release of the abuse photos, that undermines trust could easily shatter the reservoir of international good will built by Obama so far.

The argument that the publication of the photos would inflame anti-American opinion does not carry much weight because these contested photos are reportedly less disturbing than the 2004 Abu Ghraib images that stoked anti-American sentiment worldwide.

In fact, Obama said the photos in this case are not "particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib." Fair enough, why not then comply with the appeals court decision, and release the images?

There is a danger that Obama's new decision to oppose release of the photos could have the opposite of its intended effect by spreading rumors and conspiracy theories about what the photos reveal -- causing more harm than good. In the age of the new media, transparency is a powerful weapon in domestic politics and foreign policy as well.

"The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," according to Obama's own January 21 memorandum on honoring Freedom of Information Act.

The 2008 ruling by the three-judge appeals court panel, which rejected the Bush administration's major assertion that release of the photos adds little of value to the public understanding of the issue, was on the same page with Obama's. "This contention disregards FOIA's central purpose of furthering governmental accountability," concluded the appeals panel.

Yes, Mr. President, you, as a former professor of constitutional law, and the appeals court agree that open government, transparency and accountability matter and matter greatly. U.S. citizens have the right to know the full scale of horror perpetrated in their name.

There is an urgent need to come clean; to release not only these disputed photos but also the few thousand others allegedly in the Pentagon's possession. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was right when he said he once held the view that it might be best to "go through the pain once" and release a large batch of images now, since so many are at issue in multiple lawsuits.

But he and the president changed their minds when the top U.S. generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the senior commander for both wars, expressed "very great worry that release of these photographs will cost American lives," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee.

"That's all it took for me," Gates said.

The generals rightly fear releasing the photos could further undermine the standing of the U.S. military at home and abroad, though it is difficult to say that publication would cost American lives.

The commander in chief must seriously weigh the fears of his generals against broader concerns of public and national interests and open government. The latter are not a luxury but a necessity in light of what transpired in the last eight years. Coming clean would go a long way to repair any symbolic damage inflicted on the military and prevent a repeat of those crimes in the future.

Fortunately, the courts might save the Obama administration from itself. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president instructed administration lawyers to challenge release of the photos on national security grounds. He said the argument was not used before.

Well, the Bush administration already argued against the release on national security implications -- and lost. The appeals court wrote in September, 2008: "It is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces, and civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants," wrote the "people's lawyer," and later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis in a series of articles on the doctrine of New Freedom. It is hoped the Obama administration will embrace sunshine and transparency and lift the veil of secrecy that has, more often than not, damaged U.S. national interests.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Fawaz A. Gerges.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 01:41 PM   #231
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:43 AM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's national security record Thursday and argued that President Obama is weakening the country's ability to combat al Qaeda and other extremists.

Cheney argued that the Bush administration "didn't invent" the authority exercised in the war against al Qaeda and others. He said it was clearly granted by the Constitution and legislation passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.

Cheney made his remarks during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

He said the use of controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a success that saved thousands of lives.

At the same time, Cheney argued that Obama's decision to release Bush-era interrogation memos was a reckless and unfair distraction in the fight against terrorists.

He noted that Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, opposed the release of the documents.

Cheney reiterated his argument that if the public has a right to know about various methods of interrogation, it should also have a right to know what those methods achieved.

Only detainees of the "highest intelligence value" were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, he said. Only three detainees, he noted, were waterboarded.

With thousands of lives potentially in the balance, Cheney argued, it didn't make sense to let high-value detainees "answer questions in their own good time."

Cheney conceded that at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, a "few sadistic guards" committed illegal, immoral acts and therefore "deserve Army justice."

But he drew a distinction between the activities at Abu Ghraib and sanctioned interrogation techniques "conducted within the constraints of the law."

A total ban on certain interrogation techniques, Cheney said, is "recklessness cloaked in righteousness."

He ripped what he termed a "horrible precedent" to have an incoming administration "criminalize" the policies of its predecessor.

"I would advise the administration to think carefully about the course ahead," Cheney warned. oooooooh

Cheney suggested that Obama draws comfort from being criticized from the right and the left, believing that he has found an acceptable middle ground.

But, "in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures leave you half-exposed," Cheney said.

"Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. ... There is never a good time to compromise when [the lives of the American people] hang in the balance."

Cheney belittled Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility "with little deliberation and no plan."

The former vice president asserted that the Bush administration's national security policies delivered numerous "blows" to extremists targeting the United States.

He said every plot for an attack in the United States since September 11, 2001, had failed.

"When President Obama makes wise decisions ... he deserves our support," Cheney said. "And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer."

Obama delivered his own speech earlier Thursday at the National Archives, touching on virtually every point Cheney would make.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 03:05 PM   #232
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:43 AM
cheney hates us for our freedom.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2009, 11:48 AM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Two of my favorite parts of the Cheney speech.

Quote:
So we're left to draw one of two conclusions, and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event, coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.

Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years and of the policies necessary to protect America in the years to come.
How true. The "so called War on Terror" crowd was never going to be supportive of ANY policy.

Quote:

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, with our statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
And you know who you are.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2009, 12:49 PM   #234
Refugee
 
zooropop40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Interference is called Interference because it interferes on my ability to live a normal life...
Posts: 1,583
Local Time: 03:43 AM
I am ashamed to have lived in this country under an administration who oversaw torture and the dehumanization of others at Abu Gharib...and more.
__________________
zooropop40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2009, 12:55 PM   #235
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
WHAT?! You built a part on contrived indignation and phony moralizing! That's the only reason neo-cons exist...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2009, 08:35 PM   #236
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
How true. The "so called War on Terror" crowd was never going to be supportive of ANY policy.
That is false, the "so called War on Terror" crowd just advocate a different policy - i.e., dealing with terrorist incidents as a security matter.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2009, 08:49 PM   #237
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
WHAT?! You built a part on contrived indignation and phony moralizing! That's the only reason neo-cons exist...
Well, it's coming from the same mindframe that imagines himself to be on "Janet Napolitano's Terror Watch list".

Neo-'conservatism' sees enemies everywhere, some might be real but most are imagined.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2009, 12:39 AM   #238
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Two of my favorite parts of the Cheney speech.



How true. The "so called War on Terror" crowd was never going to be supportive of ANY policy.



And you know who you are.



honestly, i preferred Cheney's speech in the original German.

sadly, seems he made most if it up.

Quote:
Intel experts: Dick Cheney was wrong about Bush administration moves
By Jonathan S. Landay And Warren P. Strobel / McClatchy Newspapers | Sunday, May 24, 2009 | Home - BostonHerald.com | U.S. Politics
Photo
Photo by AP

WASHINGTON - Former Vice President Dick Cheney’s high-profile speech Thursday defending the Bush administration’s policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements, according to intelligence officals and the historical record, including:

Cheney said waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques produced information that “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” He also quoted Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair as saying the information gave U.S. officials a “deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization.”

In his statement April 21, however, Blair said “these techniques hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.” A 2004 CIA inspector general’s investigation found no conclusive proof that the information helped thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to one of four secret Bush-era memos released last month. And FBI Director Robert Muller said in December that he didn’t think that the techniques disrupted any attacks.

Cheney said his administration “moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and their sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.” In fact, the Bush administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before it finished the war in Afghanistan, leaving Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, at large nearly eight years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since 2001, and extremists have launched a concerted attack on nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Cheney accused Obama of “the selective release” of documents on Bush administration detainee policies, charging Obama withheld records that Cheney claimed prove information gained from the harsh interrogation methods prevented terrorist attacks.

In fact, the decision to withhold the documents was announced by the CIA, which said it was obliged to do so by a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush prohibiting release of materials that are subject of lawsuits.

Cheney said only “ruthless enemies of this country” were detained by U.S. operatives overseas and taken to secret U.S. prisons.

A 2008 McClatchy investigation, however, found that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees captured in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan and Pakistan were innocent citizens or low-level fighters of little intelligence value who were turned over to American officials for money or because of personal or political rivalries.

Cheney denied there was any link between the Bush administration’s interrogation policies and the abuse of detainees at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib jail, which he blamed on “a few sadistic guards.” But a bipartisan Senate Armed Services report in December traced the abuses at Abu Ghraib to approval of the techniques by senior Bush officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Article URL: Intel experts: Dick Cheney was wrong about Bush administration moves - BostonHerald.com


here's the truth, INDY: regular interrogation works.

"enhanced interrogation" obviously doesn't work, since it was applied to so few and never ever under the ticking bomb scenario.

it does work, however, if you're seeking some false confessions, like links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. (and even then, not so well, since despite torturing KSM 183 times in March of '03 alone, still no links between Iraq and AQ).

so, what we have here is proof that the Bush administration tortured only to fabricate evidence that would justify it's plan to go to war in Iraq.

and that's really the end of the story.

i think you should be waterboarded, INDY. i know you can be braver than Sean Hannity. and then come back and tell me that it isn't torture, or that it isn't unconstitutional.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2009, 12:50 AM   #239
Refugee
 
zooropop40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Interference is called Interference because it interferes on my ability to live a normal life...
Posts: 1,583
Local Time: 03:43 AM
For those who think it is not torture. All it is is simple- it is someone drowning another human. This super conservative said "its not torture" so he had it done on him. If only hannity was this brave- watch to see what happens:

YouTube - Mancow Waterboard
__________________
zooropop40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2009, 01:18 AM   #240
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:43 AM
maybe if they do it 82 more times he'll tell them where Saddam hid all of those WMDs.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com