Obama the war criminal?
 

Impeding an investigation is just as bad as committing the act yourself.

Turley: Cheney war crimes probe would be 'shortest in history'
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley...e_on_0324.html

I'm curious how those that oppose everything Obama does, regardless of what it is, feel about this.

He is essentially impeding an investigation of war crimes during the Bush Administration. Doesn't that make him just as liable as those being accused?

I can see the response now, "he's using it as a political move, just waiting until a time that he can use that to make himself look good." At which point I ask, Then he should step aside and let the investigations proceed?

I truly cannot respond to your question Johnny and dont have the stomach for where this debate may lead. In my opinion, NOTHING that has been seen, confessed, admitted, or photographed constitutes torture in my opinion.
If there was a lapse in some of what deem as acceptable by our standards, I believe the circumstances post 9/11 warranted it. This country has never fought a war where our enemy was undefined and the consequnces so high to the people who live in the country. I am not ashamed of anything this country did.

I don't think it is a simple topic to discuss. That's why I posted it. There are at least 20 posts about how the economy sucks, how the dems are screwing things up, how Obama is an idiot or all of the above in one post. It's gotten rather boring.

This forum has gotten excessively partisan over that last few weeks and I think this subject may force some people to put their partisanship aside.

Personally, our country has made an international commitment to certain laws of humanity. Is there a point in which that commitment can be ignored to protect this country? If so, where do we draw the line as to when it is necessary?

Some people say torture is ok if the person being tortured may have information that protects the safety of this country. I disagree and so does domestic and international law.

Johnny, just FYI - NONE of my posts on those topics are partisan. These topics are near and dear to my heart and things I have a great deal of experience on. As Obama is the current president, I beleive he deserves to be held accountable and I think we should discuss. I have brough up the 90% bonus tax Congress propse with at least 20 people. All swore it was AIG top execs only, I then went on to explain the details and the impacts to the thousands of emplyees whihc I detailed in my posts. No one had any clue! The good news is that people are catching on and its hitting the media.
So, back to more upbeat topics! Torture!

So, in the spirit of this debate, I'll pose the age old question Jay Severin uses all the time.

A child is kidnapped and buried in a box. There is one hour supply of air and you have the kidnapper in custody. The kidnapper refuses to tell you where the child is. WHat do you do?

I say you do every single thing imaginable to get that kidnapper to talk. So I suppose that means I support torture. Johnny, what would you do?

I'd bring in Jack Bauer and then leave the room for a few minutes.

I see the word "torture" tossed around a little to often by the left. I too have not seen any evidence that the US engaged in torture. Maybe those that are calling it "torture" could provide some evidence. I think talk of war crimes against Bush etc. will only accomplish a worsening image of America.

Jim,
this raises an interesting debate.

Are you certain the kidnapper is actually the kidnapper?
it is a fine line between getting information from someone who has information and getting it from someone who doesn't have it. I worry this is too slippery of a slope to stand on.
The next question is who gets to 'do it'. If it is my kid, maybe I could, but could you walk into a room and start cutting or beating on a hand-cuffed suspect, no matter what someone told you they might have or did? I don't know if I could.

I'm not naive enough to think that no matter how strictly worded anti-torture laws are or become, that those in the need to do business will still do, and maybe just a very few will actually know about it!

I think if it was my child, I could beat the hell out of anyone who I thought might know who might know where the box was. Let me rephrase that to" if it was any child". A beating will heal, but the death of a child?

This is all just a stage to prove that we are on the moral high ground. It is just a talking point that allows for politicians and pundits to pontificate. Do you really think for a second its going to stop? Every night as we sleep our special-ops and all our players in the shadow game around the globe are doing this. We are constantly snatching people and torturing them for information. State sanctioned... no. But, the people doing it can be linked to us and the information flows upward and ultimately into the hands of the president who has "condemned" it. We don't hear about 1/1000th of the credible threats against out country and our leaders.

Let me give you a hypo:

25 year old Algerian para-military a proficient sniper with a background in bomb making and chemical weapons trained in Iran. A known terrorist suspect. Our intel shows his cousin currently residing in Baltimore bought a 50 cal rifle w/ laser scope. He recently attempted to hack into the President's March 15th itinerary in Boulder. That same day from an internet cafe in Belgium he bought a plane ticket to Boulder for the 14th and sent 5 emails to accounts with IP addresses in the US that were subsequently cancelled, all of the emails were cryptic and in code with the signature line Allah Akbar.

So he walks out the door of his flat in Belgium heading to his favorite falafel stand and we snatch him. He gets taken to warehouse ala Jack Bauer and what do you think happens? Do you really care what happens, deep down? It is along the same lines as the "Dershowitz Hypothetical" mentioned above. I really would like people answering this to speak from the heart and not along party lines, would torturing these individuals really offend you. And yes I am acknowledging there is a margin of error in this line of work.

For F#*ks sake, can you not be partisan for 2 minutes?

I beg to differ. You can only throw around words like "those liberals" and "blame the democrats" for so long before you become partisan.


Personally, if it were 100% clear that this was the person that buried the kid, I'd have no issue breaking his fingers one by one, moving on to the toes and then cutting his ears off one at a time.

But I'm just a crazy liberal.

I love it.

This is like saying that I didn't want to cheat on my wife, but that hooker was really, really hot.

-spence

It's pretty scary to know you think this way.

Moral high ground has allowed the United States to act with near impunity for the past century. People around the world look up to the USA because more than perhaps any other nation we respect the rule of law as applied to every man.

Or at least we thought we did.

Waterboarding is torture under the law and by the admission of our own VP we've done it. There can be no argument that we've not tortured.

The ticking time bomb scenario is full of holes, and most torture experts will tell you that it's not reliable enough to be of much use anyway. There are numerous insiders who have stated absolutely that the Administration's claims of gaining valuable intel from waterboarding are pure BS.

Perhaps one of the worst things the Bush Administration did to our country was claim the lesson of 9/11 gave justification to cast away our own adherance to the rule of laws we agreed to uphold.

Who we believe in America if we don't believe in ourselves?

-spence

This is one comment I could not agree with more.

I could pretend to be, like others here. Would that be better?:angel:

You are more of a moonbat then originally thought.

Please be more explicit. Using silly names picked up from listening to talk radio isn't very compelling.

-spence

Spence is no moonbat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is exactly why I'm against torture.

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...802066_pf.html

One supporting argument for invading Iraq was because of Saddam's "Crimes Against Humanity." However, this prisoner is tortured because of the CIA's speculation that he is a high level al-Qaeda operative (which proved to be false) and because he must have information on other plots (also false). All this from former employees of the last Administration.

So because of 9/11, it is ok for the US to perform torture?

If your equating what Saddam did, to what the CIA did you lose all credibility.

Once again JD. What torture?

It's simply wrong to suggest that Abu Zubaida wasn't intimately involved with al-Qaeda," said a U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much about Abu Zubaida remains classified. "He was one of the terrorist organization's key facilitators, offered new insights into how the organization operated, provided critical information on senior al-Qaeda figures . . . and identified hundreds of al-Qaeda members. How anyone can minimize that information -- some of the best we had at the time on al-Qaeda -- is beyond me."

From JD's article.......

You must have not read very closely.

The article clearly states that the US did get valuable information from Abu Zubaida...using conventional methods and before he was ever tortured... and that the methods later which would be considered torture didn't reveal any useful information.

-spence

Oh, If the article is true....There is only one way to find out for sure...:fishslap:

Tick, tick...

-spence

Saddam was a tyrant and responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. I am not at all saying that the CIA's actions are equivalent. But my point is, where do you draw the line?

Torture is considered a crime against humanity. But torture is okay as long as you only torture a few people at a time, or they're suspected of having information?

That quote is conveniently out of context, nice try at selectively quoting the article. Anyone who actual reads the article will be able to figure that out.

If the article isn't true, I guess that would make the whole passage from the Counterterrorism official inaccurate as well, and no useful information was ever provided by Abu Zubaida.

Those that need to know and have to know, know what's true.

And I am glad that they are very good at their job

If no one knows, then maybe they do a terrible job. But you wouldn't know that because only the ones that need to know, know that.