The Rank, Reeking Horror of Torturing Some Folks

[WilliamPitt]

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 02:07 PM - Edit history (1)

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)

The Rank, Reeking Horror of Torturing Some Folks
By William Rivers Pitt
Truthout | Op-Ed

Thursday 11 December 2014

Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.

- John Lennon

"Let me put it plainly: these people do not belong on my television. They belong in prison, for the crimes of theft, torture and murder. They shattered the lives of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Iraqi civilians. They savaged the American economy paying for it all, and several of them got very rich in the process. They should be in orange jumpsuits and fetters, picking mealworms out of their gruel while shuttered in very small, very grim, very inescapable metal rooms."

I wrote that back in June of this year because I thought I knew the whole deal. I saw all the pictures from Abu Ghraib, knew about the so-called "Black Sites" where innocent prisoners were sent to be torn apart, read all the books, and listened to the words of those who endured these seven hells and lived. Quite a crowd of people, including several prisoners who cannot be accounted for to this day, did not survive to tell their tale.

I thought I knew, I really did, and then the Senate dropped their Torture Report, and we all got to hear about a guy whose dinner of hummus, pasta and nuts was pureed and then blasted up his anus in an act of violence and humiliation that isn't even the worst of what was reported. They tied prisoners to beds and made them stand on broken legs for dozens of hours. A description of one photograph of one waterboard - there were others, of course - called it "well worn." Several of the people tasked to deliver these horrors are described as having "issues" that should have disqualified them from government service altogether, including "histories of violence and mistreatment of others."

In my name. In your name. In our name.

(snip)

Back in August, President Obama - who saw this report and all of its grisly details coming a mile away - let drop the least anonymous penny in history: "We tortured some folks." Later in his remarks, the president said, "And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong."

Those who tortured are patriots. Those who call it wrong are sanctimonious. Got it?

That, right there, is why this whole nightmare came to be. Not because of President Obama, but because of the soft-pedal smooshy attitude he so clearly expressed. He knew what was going to be in this report when he made those remarks - of course he did - but still chose to butter it up with "patriots" and "9/11 you guys" and "Oops." This level of institutionalized cowardice and knee-jerk ass-covering is exactly and precisely what allows sociopaths in positions of unimaginable power to run wild and bathe in the tears, blood and viscera of their victims.

In my name. In your name. In our names.

(snip)

As far as the perpetrators go, the Bush-era chieftains, the half-assed lords of war who delivered this disgrace to us all, I comfort myself with an old anecdote:

Once upon a time, there was a man who went to the news stand every morning, bought a newspaper, snarled at the front page, and then threw the paper away in anger. He did this every day, day after day. After a time, the newsboy asked the man, "What is it you're looking for, sir?"

"The obituaries," said the man.

"But sir," said the newsboy, "the obituaries are on page 30."

"When the bastard I'm looking for dies," said the man, "it'll be on the front page."

Thin gruel, to be sure, but time always wins in the end. There will be justice done, on this side or the other.

The whole thing: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/27939-the-rank-reeking-horror-of-torturing-some-folks

[NYC_SKP]

1. None of the revelations of late surprise me. I am not going to hop on the outrage train today.

I think I need to turn off posts with the keyword "torture" in them.

We are about to nominate a Clinton, if we don't focus on turning THAT mistake around, then we might as well chalk torture up to "things that make America exceptional and proud".

I'm not in, I'm not joining the outrage fest today.

Or tomorrow.

[woo me with science]

9. Hillary *means* more torture, renditions, warmongering, TPP, surveillance state, police state,

More soul-sucking apologism, mind-numbing propaganda, abetting the banks and criminals, corporate/MIC domination, and sending the soul of this nation into the sewer.

THIRD WAY GHOULS.....NOTHING IS BEYOND OUR REACH.

The important point here is that it's all related. These are the fruits of Wall Street/MIC corruption, and Hillary is the poster child for more of the same. If you want continuation of the Wall Street/MIC cabal that breaks bones, rapes children in front of their parents, and impoverishes millions while helping both torturers *and* banking criminals hide evidence of their crimes, praising the torturers as "patriots," and imprisoning the whistleblowers......Hillary's the choice.)[/font size]

A paragraph from Chris Hedges' piece on Truthdig today that adroitly summarizes where we are.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025930017

Only CIA Agent Jailed for Torture Program Is Whistleblower Who Confirmed Its Existence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025943291

I'm sorry Obama, those who sodomized Iraqi boys in front of their mothers, are NOT patriots
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5940281

Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9

[hueymahl]

21. You should make these links part of your signature

I would do it in mine, but no one gives a rats ass what I say!

All those Hillary supporters out there, especially the ones on the fence, need to know the truth of what she is all about.

[Duval]

60. I'm reading your post and I

do give a rat's ass what you say.

[woo me with science]

135. I give a rat's ass about what you say, too.

Maybe we should ALL do it. Her agenda is a menace to this nation...If there is any hope of resurrecting democracy left here at all at this point, avoiding having another corporate Trojan horse pushed down our throats as the Democratic nominee is the hope for it.

[nationalize the fed]

103. +25

Truth Cuts Like A Knife

[NanceGreggs]

108. Oh, another post from Woo ...

... consisting of a noun, a verb, and Third Way!!!!!!!!! - along with this holiday season's most sought-after gift, the Bag o' Blue Links!!!

Seriously, folks - who could ask for anything more? Or less?

[joshcryer]

116. He praised Mark Udall, a third wayer, yesterday.

It cracked me up.

Then went on to defend the torture defender Kiriakou as a "patriot." Let that one sink in. This is a guy who to this day defends post-9/11 torture as necessary as a patriot, while Obama, who signed an executive order two days into office banning torture as fan of torturers who are patriots.

It's literally Orwellian insanity. The propaganda is so deep, the contorted logic is so vast, it's hard to get ones head around it.

[Bobbie Jo]

129. Good Lord

Orwellian, indeed.

Lunacy is Sanity....

[joshcryer]

130. Yep.

And if anyone questions my post, I got links to back every single word up... you can shoot me a PM if you want, or simply Google that nickname and the words I posted.

edit: for the record I voted for Mark Udall and I thought his NSA spying / environmental record was more than worth it, I didn't give one shit that he was "third way." He did what I elected him to do. It's a shame the right wing trounced him this go around. And it's a shame people trashed me for supporting him.

[nruthie]

2. Pretty much says it all.

[warrant46]

83. Dick Cheney belongs in Chains

The kind that clink when you walk.

[cstanleytech]

121. So did Reagan and Bush Sr but we all have seen how that turned out with

the pardons.
Heck we had a few good chances to get Cheney out of office when he was VP but he was well protected, take the time he shot the guy in the face when he was most likely drunk? That was covered up pretty well by the secret service and the police.
Then there was the whole bit about leaking Plames name for which Libby took the bullet in order to protect the VP.

[Sunlei]

137. He will probably die of old age still vacationing & advising with koch and the republican gang.

100% the very best free medical care and personal security paid for by 'We the People'.

[LawDeeDah]

3. no sale for a ticket on the outrage train on this.

I spent it all during the Bush years.

[IDemo]

4. I'm not holding my breath for justice

I'm currently reading "The Divide: American Justice in the Age of the Wealth Gap" by Matt Taibbi. A huge reason that Wall Street escaped virtually unscathed for the worst financial crimes in human history and will again traces its roots to a memo written by Eric Holder when he was in the Clinton administration. It's where the "Too Big to Jail" philosophy of the Justice Department began, and it quite simply provides the blueprint for criminal enterprise in the US from here out, regardless of whether financial in nature or not. It's the essence of the 'big club, and you're not in it' idea.

While some of the perps in the torture club may want to seriously consider their safety when traveling abroad, I very much doubt they are in any immediate danger in the good ol' US of A.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. By that measure, 9/11 was perpetrated by "some folks" who were under a lot of pressure.

And, they certainly shouldn't be prosecuted for making "some mistakes".

[truebluegreen]

6. Kick kick kick!

"We tortured some folks" after reading that report? Morally squishy, "soft-pedal smooshy...". A few days ago, a DUer refused to believe that Obama was not really in charge of the CIA, saying that that would mean he was weak, or complicit....I don't see any other choices, except maybe "all of the above."

[KingCharlemagne]

94. Charlie Pierce had this to say on the matter when news of the spying by CIA on the

Senate first emerged:

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that, in one very important way, the president has lost control of his own government. The current constitutional crisis between the CIA and the Senate committee tasked with investigating its policies regarding torture during the previous administration has only one real solution that is consonant with the rule of law. Either CIA director John Brennan gets to the bottom of what his people were doing and publicly fires everyone involved, or John Brennan becomes the ex-director of the CIA. By the Constitution, this isn't even a hard call. The Senate has every legal right to investigate what was done in the name of the American people during the previous decade. It has every legal right to every scrap of information relating to its investigation, and the CIA has an affirmative legal obligation to cooperate. Period. The only way this is not true is if we come to accept the intelligence apparatus as an extra-legal, formal fourth branch of the government.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-cia-john-brennan-031414 (Emphasis added)

This - the portrait of President Obama as little more than a ceremonial figurehead - is some seriously scary shit, because it raises the question of who really is in charge.

[daleanime]

7. K&R....

This is going to piss me off for the rest of my life.

[heaven05]

8. RAPING CHILDREN in our name also......

I'll never forget, sad part is, neither will they....... Children...in the name of USA! USA! USA!

[Enthusiast]

10. Kicked and recommended a massive amount!

[xiamiam]

11. some folks are currently ignoring the fact that we are a nation of laws

please tell me how one man, albeit president,an elected president, can continue this charade and make that blanket statement that we will not seek prosecutions. Torture is illegal and ineffective not to mention morally incomprehensible. i'm infuriated..this open wound lies festering.
Please tell me how and why he can get away with this?

[grasswire]

14. oddly, he keeps telling us that we are a nation of laws.

Disconnect.

[rhett o rick]

45. This is typical rhetoric. We are a nation of laws we just don't apply them to the 1% class. nm

[snappyturtle]

104. +1 I'm just guessing but I think the President made the no

prosecution statement because he doesn't want anyone coming back (in the future) on 'things' that occurred under his tenure, e.g. drones, etc.

[woo me with science]

123. Every state that turns authoritarian builds a propaganda machine. nt

[woo me with science]

12. Thank you, Will.

What you write shames the filthy apologism coming from the propaganda machine.

This is about fighting to revive, or being complicit in burying forever, the conscience of a nation.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. God is in the mix, I'm a Christian, we tortured some folks, don't be sanctimonious- Obama poetics

I do wonder if he knows that bit in his Bible where Jesus says that anyone who harms a prisoner is harming Jesus himself. I don't think that he does.

[Jamastiene]

87. I know. People loving each other and "God is in the mix".

People doing cruel, inhumane things to other people and RAPING CHILDREN and we get "We tortured some folks" as if it's no big deal.

[grasswire]

15. proud to rec this, Will

Truth to power.

[gordianot]

16. When the two main culprits Bush and Cheney start pointing fingers simultaneously denying a crime....

They engage in this activity knowing there are no consequences and few really listen to them.

[SomethingFishy]

17. Thanks Will...

[DeSwiss]

18. He knew, Will.

Obama knew what Bush had done all along. How could he not? A drone killer of babies and their mothers, not to mention U.S. citizens (sans ''Due Process''). And now he adds covering up for torturers.

- Oddly, I'm most disgusted with us for living in denial and letting them get away with it.

And we still are.....

K&R

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. "There will be justice done, on this side or the other."

I know some people find comfort in the idea of bad guys getting punished in the afterlife but as an atheist I feel it's our responsibility to see to it they pay for their crimes in this reality.

[WilliamPitt]

22. Which was the point of this particular exercise.

Not to get anyone's hopes up, but the conversation about finally bringing to bear the rule of law upon those who so brazenly broke it has been getting loud of late. "Senior US officials who authorized and carried out torture as part of former President George W. Bush's national security policy must be prosecuted, a top UN special investigator said Wednesday. Ben Emmerson, the UN's special rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights, said in addition that all CIA and other U.S. officials who used waterboarding and other torture techniques must be prosecuted."

...and:

"Let me put it plainly: these people do not belong on my television. They belong in prison, for the crimes of theft, torture and murder. They shattered the lives of thousands of American soldiers and millions of Iraqi civilians. They savaged the American economy paying for it all, and several of them got very rich in the process. They should be in orange jumpsuits and fetters, picking mealworms out of their gruel while shuttered in very small, very grim, very inescapable metal rooms."

Ermahgerd, I mentioned the possibility of an afterlife once, which means the entire argument is invalidated and stuff!

Um...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. No. I'm just looking forward to this...

[Duval]

61. If only n/t

[woo me with science]

20. 60 recs and counting...

[Autumn]

24. 67 rec and counting woo

[Autumn]

23. Bump this up because it fucking reeks. Still

[Liberal_Dog]

25. K & R

[Oilwellian]

26. Great piece, Will

Kick

[NanceGreggs]

27. Nice editing job ...

""We tortured some folks." Later in his remarks, the president said, "And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong."

Truly dishonest journalism. "Later in his remarks, the president said ..." What you chose to leave out was what Obama actually said, which clearly did not immediately follow from "we tortured some folks".

"... and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."

Clearly, in very plain English, "those folks" he referenced in the second sentence are "the law enforcement and national security teams" he referred to in the previous sentence. He then went on to say that "a lot of those folks" are patriots.

But for some reason, you chose to "edit" Obama's remarks - and deliberately mislead the reader by doing so.

It's fairly easy to cherry-pick two statements, and simply omit the pertinent statements in between, in order to imply that one statement flowed from the other. FOX-News are masters at this type of "editing". But we expect that of them; we've seen it thousands of times. It's just very sad to see that tactic used here.

[WilliamPitt]

28. "Later in his remarks"

Reading is fundamental, Nance. I don't know what planet you've fled to, but it makes me really sad. Honest to God sad. You don't see how gruesome these remarks are, in either version? No, you don't. Enjoy your sad, strange planet. I've missed you for a long while now. Seems I'll have to continue to do so.

[NanceGreggs]

32. Yes, reading IS fundamental, Will.

You edited Obama's statement, and then added, "Those who tortured are patriots," completely ignoring the fact that the "patriots" being referred to were "a lot of" our law enforcement and our national security teams, as is clearly pointed out in the preceding sentence which you chose to omit.

Now you can go on insisting that Obama referred to torturers as patriots. It is clear from his remarks that he did no such thing - unless, of course, one chooses to accept the "edited" version, and simply ignore the preceding sentence which specifically identifies who was being spoken about.

"Editing" anyone's statements in order to remove the context of their comments is dishonest and deliberately misleading. And you, of all people, should know that.

[Andy823]

38. I noticed that

Not once has there been a "denial" that things were "edited" to fit the negative view the OP is trying to paint of the president. There seems to be a lot of this going on today in post after post, twisting the president words.

Thanks for pointing out the truth Nance.

[rhett o rick]

48. The difference you are pointing out is insignificant to the issue. Maybe Will exaggerated

I am not saying he did, but he was trying to make a point. A point that the Obama defenders ignore. You choose to attack the OP author and not try to support what the President said.

It is crystal clear that the Bush Admin not only broke laws but in our name, committed horrendous atrocities. Pres Obama doesn't condemn the monsters that committed these atrocities, he doesn't even condemn the actions, but has the audacity to try to mollify us by playing down the actions and sadly trying to justify them as well. How insulting.

[BeanMusical]

92. Absolutely.

And by not condemning the actions, trying to justify them, doesn't it make him an accomplice?

[nilesobek]

71. It stinks either way.

"Our law enforcement and our national security teams."

Aren't these guys the ones who did the torturing? He surely would have went a lot farther in differentiating the two groups. As it is, he didn't separate them.

Even if Obama didn't mean it that way, his speechwriter should be fired.

[NanceGreggs]

78. He said ...

" ... there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this ... and a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."

He said "a lot of those folks" - he didn't say ALL of those folks. So he was leaving some folks out of the group he referred to as patriots.

So who was he leaving out? You apparently want to believe that he was calling torturers "patriots", and was leaving out others who were not engaged in torture.

If that makes any logical sense to you, so be it. On its face, and in view of all of Obama's other statements on the use of torture, it makes no sense whatsoever.

"Aren't these guys the ones who did the torturing?"

Yes, of course - ALL members of law enforcement and nat'l security teams were involved in torture. Every last one of them. Right?

[nilesobek]

80. Thanks for the reply. I see your point

but I think he could have been a lot clearer than that.

[Marrah_G]

100. If a Repulican said what he did you would never excuse it

If a Republican refused to prosecute and just brushed it aside like it was nothing...you would have been outraged.

If your point of view on issues changes because the person in power has a D or an R next to their name, you might want to take a good long look at why that is.

[LondonReign2]

143. ^This^

The double standard from some is sickening

[malaise]

153. WTF??

Republicans authorized the torture - all this torture happened under a ReTHUG regime.

[Thespian2]

126. Sorry, Nance

Clearly Obama knows what Bush and Company did, and he protected them. By doing so, he became as guilty as the criminals he is protecting.

Will has the better argument.

[840high]

29. oh no - not again.

[xiamiam]

30. somehow you are trying to justify that bs folksy way of saying we tortured but its ok because folks

were under pressure

you cant possibly believe that?

you cant possibly believe that adjusting a few lines of a sentence undoes the argument against such a vile practice.

[NanceGreggs]

34. Read Obama's statement in full ...

"... and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."

Obama referred to "law enforcement and our national security teams", and went on to say that "a lot of those folks" were patriots.

He did not say that ALL of those people were patriots.

He did not say that those who engaged in torture were patriots.

"you cant possibly believe that adjusting a few lines of a sentence undoes the argument against such a vile practice."

I am now, and always have been, 100% against torture. And I've written many pieces on the topic over the years.

But omitting the relevant portions of Obama's statement is not "adjusting a few lines of a sentence" - it is purposely ignoring what was actually said in order to mislead.

If you're not familiar with this type of "editing", tune-in to FOX-News. You'll see it in action over there 24/7.

[Beringia]

35. Even if all he said, was "we tortured some folks", that is still wrong

folks? torture? The word folks is very much trying to act innocent.

[LondonReign2]

144. She isn't a torture apologist, she is an Obama apologist

If Republican said this we'd see the outrage meter spike over the top

[xiamiam]

41. I dont watch tv..makes it very easy for me to identify an apologist or sycophant

Wills piece is relevant whether you want to quibble about editing. I hate the way Obama uses the word folks and took issue with it when he initially made those remarks. I hate the way he tries to make those Americans who torture, regular folk just like you and me and the rest of us folk. I hate that he wants me and you to not judge it. No amount of defending will justify what he said or that he refuses to prosecute.

[Hissyspit]

44. Not all, but which?

CIA are national security.

My heart sank when I heard that speech, and I heard it in full context.

[NanceGreggs]

62. And that is the crux of the matter ...

""... and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."

By saying "a lot of those folks", he was apparently leaving some people out of the group he was referring to as "patriots".

It seems some would have it that he was calling torturers "patriots" - so WHO was he leaving out when he said "a lot of" instead of "all"? Was it the people in law enforcement and nat'l security who had no involvement in torture whatsoever? Do you honestly think he was singling out torturers as "patriots", and implying that those not involved were not to be considered "patriots"?

Here's the thing, Hissyspit. This one statement by Obama has been parsed, sliced, diced, dissected, analyzed - and, in Will's case, "edited" in such a way as to ignore its context and its completeness of thought.

Given that there have been no other statements made by Obama (that anyone has yet to point to) even coming close to his calling torturers "patriots", logic dictates that THIS statement would have to be totally out of sync with everything else the man has said on the topic.

Does that make sense to you? Do you think Obama just suddenly decided to refer to torturers as "patriots", in hopes that no one would notice? Do you think he figured he could slip that one remark into a statement on torture "just this one time", and no one would hear it?

[Hissyspit]

81. My point: He should have been clear. And we certainly didn't need to be told not to be

sanctimonious.

This is closer to what he should have said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5945640

[NanceGreggs]

89. DU is full of ...

... what should have been said, what could have been said, what might have been said, etc.

The point remains that Obama said what he DID say - and "interpreting" what he DID say as being calling torturers "patriots" has absolutely no basis in fact.

There's been a lot of "Obama could just do/say" on DU over the past few years, and the vast majority of those comments would entail Obama "just doing" what is illegal, unethical, and beyond the scope of his authority as POTUS.

[stupidicus]

149. and if I was in his position

after having received all the grief he has from so many quarters regarding his "sanctimonious" affront coupled to his call for more understanding of all those hard working torturers, I'd be setting the record straight.

Almost the entire world understood his words the way they are being criticized here, and yet his more enamored supporters think their tenacity alone is gonna win the day, because their so-called arguments sure as hell ain't.

How the hell else would one expect for him to talk about/defend those he ain't willing to prosecute? ANd why would anyone need to be called out for santimoniousness over those not involved in the torture they have no axe to grind with?

[Scootaloo]

56. If only you could find outrage over people being tortured, like you can this

[NanceGreggs]

57. I have written several pieces over the years ...

... about torture. And torture is outrageous. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't think so.

However, my discussion here is not about torture, but about Will "editing" Obama's statements on the topic, in a rather blatant attempt to make it seem he said something he didn't.

Two different subjects. And I am not "outraged" about Will's omission of the words that don't fit his intent; I am simply disappointed that a "journalist" would fail to address Obama's complete statement, and would instead cherry-pick only those statements that serve his purpose.

[Scootaloo]

59. is the president seeking prosecutions?

Has he picked up the phone to tell holder to go after these war criminals? he can do that, you know. he doesn't need bipartisan support. he doesn't need to beg and plead congress. He can just tell the department of justice to apprehend these war criminals and begin investigations. In fact, as the head of the executive branch of government, it is his obligation to do this.

What you're missing is that he is speaking of "Law enforcement and national security teams" in the context of having "tortured some folks". He is telling us to not get "sanctimonious" in the context of admitting we "tortured some folks."

He also said this:

And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that, hopefully, we don't do it again in the future.

Where is responsibility being taken?

[LawDeeDah]

75. What does your statement here have anything to do with the OP deliberately editing

to make the President sound like he meant or said something he did not.

Editing like this is right up there with plagiarism, it is unprofessional at the very least.

[Scootaloo]

82. WilliamPitt didn't edit anything.

Back in August, President Obama - who saw this report and all of its grisly details coming a mile away - let drop the least anonymous penny in history: "We tortured some folks." Later in his remarks, the president said, "And, you know, it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong."

"Later in his remarks" is not an edit, but a factual statement - especially since "later' is exactly two sentences later.

With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.

I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president

This is what the man said. and the context clearly shows that he is coming to the defense of those who conductedthese acts, while trying to condemn the acts themselves.

However, our legal system does not operate on the philosophy of "hate the sin but love the sinner."

[NanceGreggs]

119. When the omitted ...

... comments are the very sentences that set the overall context, it is VERY MUCH a case of creative editing to leave them out.

[Scootaloo]

120. No, as I have already explained to you.

The overall context is having tortured some "folks."

I suppose that this fact eludes you, in your amoral need to close ranks around The Party.

But, that's what we're looking at.

- We tortured people.
- He understands why.
- Law enforcement and national security teams had to respond to terrorism.
- It was tough
- They are patriots for doing it.
- You're sanctimonious if you disagree

You can keep lying to yourself. It obviously makes you feel better. But... children were raped. People were killed. There are no prosecutions, and there will be none. And that, my friend, is our president's response to the situation.

As I said before, if you could conjure even half as much outrage for the people whose lives were fucking destroyed, who will never receive even a mote of justice for their pain, as you do for someone pointing out what the president said, you could be a much better human being.

[JustAnotherGen]

131. jury results on this

I agree with your sentiments - but the amoral and stating Nance could be a 'much better human being' were still out of line.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:28 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, as I have already explained to you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5948917

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"in your amoral need to close ranks around The Party."
"you could be a much better human being"

What a nasty nasty personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Dec 12, 2014, 07:36 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerted without merit. Get over your silly old self fer crisakes.
Wanting to hide a post that disagrees with you is taking a cowardly approach IMO.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Aw, come on. It ain't that nasty.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Truth hurts.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Calling another DUer amoral and sanctimonious is a clear personal attack to me
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: From justanothergen: I agree with what the alerter pointed out. If this survives a jury - I would hope that scootaloo would remove that. I agree with the points being made - but the words used are personal attacks on the person scoot is responding to. It can be said without posting that to Nance.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A typical response, not surprised in the least.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Well said. Fuck all this twisting and parsing of words from political hacks.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[stupidicus]

152. indeed, it's hard to figure which is the more repugnant

what BHO said or the efforts by those to defend it.

[marym625]

98. Let's pretend that William edited the quote,

Which he did not. What part of, "we tortured some folks" is OK? What part of, "it's important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. A lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots, but having said all that, we did some things that were wrong" doesn't excuse torture and the torturers while demeaning critics? "We did some things wrong" is supposed to be any kind of condemnation of torture?

For 12 years one man was tortured daily. One man for 12 years tortured by the US. Horrors, unspeakable horrors. Daily. Every. Fucking. Day. 

What information could he possibly have had even after 6 months never mind after 12 fucking years? 

And then, after he came to them, more came and they used the torture as a model on them all. Day after day. Week after week. Year after year. 

Obama has gone back on what he said about torture back in 2007, "no one is above the law." Evidently, for Obama, many are.

[ctsnowman]

125. Exactly!

"Where is responsibility being taken?"

[LondonReign2]

145. They REFUSE to answer

the question re holding people responsible. It is more effective if they can distract attention over what the definition of the word "is" is.

[greytdemocrat]

85. Anyone

That thinks Will is a "journalist" is in for disappointment.

[NanceGreggs]

88. As things stand now ...

... I would have to agree.

There was a time when Will could be relied upon to tell it like it is. There was also a time when DU was a "Democratic-supporting site".

Sadly, both of those times have passed.

[BeanMusical]

93. That's totally creepy.

[Hissyspit]

43. How is the CIA not a national security team?

They were bad remarks no matter the complete context.

[NanceGreggs]

47. Where did I say they weren't?

And the minute you say "no matter the complete context", you lose me.

Context matters, complete statements matter. "Editing" statements in order to omit context is FOX-News territory.

[Autumn]

67. Who were the members of Bush's National Security Team at that time ? Do you remember?

When the torture started what agency was in charge of law enforcement? That's the "folks" and the "agencies" that Obama was referring to.

[morningfog]

46. What are we supposed to not feel too sanctimonious about?

If not the torture?

[NanceGreggs]

51. If you'll remember ...

... in the aftermath of 9/11, law enforcement in many cities, especially NYC, detained Muslims and "Middle-Eastern looking men" without cause or charge. Many were denied their right to contact anyone, including family or legal counsel.

There were also allegations of cops failing to respond to complaints by Muslims who were being harassed and threatened, and allegations that when cops arrived on the scene of altercations between white citizens and Middle Eastern men, the police arrested those ME men instead of those who were threatening them.

There were allegations of the police targeting ME citizens for "stop and frisk", in the same way they target black men, and trumping up charges against them.

There's an example for you.

[morningfog]

68. But that's not what Obama was talking about.

He was talking about torture.

[Vattel]

141. No, can't you read?

He was referring to the law enforcement people who didn't torture anyone and saying that some of them were real patriots. And he was saying that we shouldn't get too sanctimonious about some of the bad things those non-torturing law enforcement people did to Muslim people because they had tough jobs. Oh wait, what I am saying is ridiculous.

[nilesobek]

76. Got some links?

All I hear is "allegations." I don't doubt some of these things occurred but it has no foundation in this argument you have over semantics. Again, the President did NOT differentiate between, "Our law enforcement and our national security teams." and the torturers. Even after Will's edit it does not change meaning.

[GeorgeGist]

124. Keep digging.

[LawDeeDah]

53. Thankyou, Nance. Blatant misrepresentation at work.

After all, the President must live up to the 'piece of shit used car salesman that can fuck off' to save face.

[alarimer]

55. He's calling people who object to torture "sactimonious."

I noticed that Obama apologists are all out in force, nit-picking this and that to try and get around the fact that he basically excused torture by saying those people had a "tough job." Fuck that shit.

[stupidicus]

63. indeed, no need to "edit"

his words are dispicable enough as they were http://theweek.com/article/index/265780/president-obamas-despicable-whitewashing-of-torture

The turd rolls downhill from the "we tortured some folks" point to where it crashed on the rocks of dispicability when he referred to them as "patriots".

The splatter job covered his defenders far and wide...

They've been so busy cleaning up the mess that they haven't even found the time or interest to praise the non-torturing "patriots".http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LEVjDdQopUGAYAxzUPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMG04Z2o2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1418376029/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.latimes.com%2fopinion%2fop-ed%2fla-oe-0814-jaffer-obama-torture-report-20140814-story.html/RK=0/RS=dUmSYwqkM1vZwb1dhtYOkPcy2OE- just as he wasn't doing there and hasn't done since, no?

[NanceGreggs]

66. He didn't refer to torturers as patriots.

But you're going to keep insisting that he did.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

[NanceGreggs]

70. I am not about to engage in ...

... a game of yes, he did/no, he didn't.

Believe what you want to believe - it is of no consequence to me.

[NanceGreggs]

79. Dubya said "we don't torture" ...

... well after he KNEW the opposite was true. Obama ended it, and released the report detailing its use under BushCo.

So if you have a problem with being lied to, you might want to direct your ire at the men responsible, and not at the man who ended its use.

[WilliamPitt]

73. Jesus.

Every newspaper in the free world quoted him doing exactly that.

I ask again: what the hell happened to you?

[NanceGreggs]

86. Nothing has happened to me, Will.

I am still 100% against torture - despite the fact that a few months ago, you accused me of defending it on a thread here on DU. You didn't provide any basis for that accusation. There were no links to anything I'd said that could even remotely be construed as defending torture - you just made the accusation, and left it at that.

I am still the person who thinks a professional journalist should not take statements out of context, or edit what someone said, in order to make it appear that two very separate and distinct comments followed each other - thereby creating the agenda-driven illusion that two individual remarks were part and parcel of one stream of thought.

I am still the person who believes that quoting Obama out of context, and then insisting that "what he meant was" something he never said, is a FOX-News-worthy tack, and has no place in ethical journalism.

I am still the person who thinks that someone calling the president "a piece of shit used car salesman" - because THEY themselves didn't do their homework when assessing which insurance coverage was best suited to their family's needs - has seriously compromised his integrity, not only as a journalist of note, but as a thinking human being.

I am still the person who wonders how Obama "used" a severely and very visibly injured soldier as a "prop" to glorify war at his SOTU address - when in fact it would very obviously do just the opposite. If Obama wanted a "prop" to glorify combat, would he not have "used" a handsome young medal-covered soldier, instead of one who was so apparently severely injured as a result of his service? I am still trying to wrap my head around whatever logic you were trying to bring to the conversation.

I am still the person who doesn't trust anything that is said by newspapers, the mainstream print media, or TV "news" outlets. I instead rely on journalists I trust to give me the facts.

You were once one of those journalists. But given your tirades about POS used car salesmen, your insistence on "editing" Obama's statements rather than addressing them in full, and your penchant for commenting on "what Obama meant" as opposed to what Obama actually said, I've had to move you into the "not to be trusted" category.

DU was once a place of discussion among Democrats and like-minded people. It has become the Official Complaints Department for "disappointed, disgruntled Dems" - along with RW trolls who pose as "disappointed, disgruntled Dems". And you are very obviously "playing to the crowd" in place of reporting the facts, and commenting on their implications.

Bashing Obama is now what the majority of DU is all about. And you have decided to go along to get along, rather than alienate the "rec" givers who see ANY support of Obama as contrary to their agenda.

And that's just sad, all the way around.

[sheshe2]

102. One Duer admitted to me...

from you~

Bashing Obama is now what the majority of DU is all about. And you have decided to go along to get along, rather than alienate the "rec" givers who see ANY support of Obama as contrary to their agenda.

And that's just sad, all the way around.

They said~

That they do it for the rec's. They said when they post a positive about the President that they go nowhere. When they criticize him they go to the top of the page.

Sadly posted~

[NanceGreggs]

105. Sadly ...

... that has been the DU reality for some time now, sheshe2.

Point of fact: On the afternoon before the SOTU address, Will Pitt posted a very positive OP about Obama, and what he expected the Prez would say. It had a lot of "views", as one would expect of any Will Pitt post - but very few replies or recs.

After the SOTU address, WP posted a scathing review of the speech, which garnered shitloads of recs. His previous positive OP about Obama was then "deleted by poster".

Will knows which side of the bread is the buttered side. His comments about Obama have been negative ever since.

It is not difficult to see how any positive OPs about Obama sink into oblivion, and how the negative OPs rise to the top of the Greatest Page.

So this is what DU has become - a place where "recs" are more important than the truth, and being at the top of the Greatest Page is more important than anything.

[joshcryer]

110. This is the world of clickbait.

It is unfortunate but everything, and I mean everything on the internet hinges on whether you can get as many people outraged about something as possible.

This is my favorite, demonstrably unfactual, wrong, misinformed thread here that got almost 60 recs: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024712350

[greatauntoftriplets]

139. I'd like to say that my jaw dropped when I read the post you reference.

But I can't. It's been patently obvious for some time.

[Bobbie Jo]

106. This is a 'must read'

Perfectly said, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

107. Thanks so much, Bobbie Jo!

[joshcryer]

109. The MSM can be trusted if it belittles Obama.

Didn't you know?

[NanceGreggs]

111. Along with trusting any polls ...

... or surveys that claim Obama's numbers are in the dumpster, as opposed to those that say otherwise.

Ya know, it's not a matter of WHO you trust. It's a matter of "trusting" the right source at the right time.

[Spazito]

113. Well said!

I agree with everything you said in your post.

"You were once one of those journalists. But given your tirades about POS used car salesmen, your insistence on "editing" Obama's statements rather than addressing them in full, and your penchant for commenting on "what Obama meant" as opposed to what Obama actually said, I've had to move you into the "not to be trusted" category." A BIG yep to this.

[joshcryer]

112. Fascinating the jury left this while #36 was hidden.

Literally the same content.

[Spazito]

115. I was pleasantly surprised #36 was hidden...

as it should have been, imo.

[joshcryer]

117. I rarely alert.

And didn't alert on that. But I was on the jury on that one, and I was like, "WTF is this shit, NanceGreggs doesn't defend torture" or something to that effect. I hate the personality conflicts and attacks. Can't we just talk policy?

Kudos to the alerter though.

[Spazito]

118. I was on the jury as well, didn't expect it to be hidden given who the poster was...

hence being pleasantly surprised at the result.

[stupidicus]

148. of course he did

as any honest deconstruction of his words from start to finish there shows.

It's totally inescapable without denial or at the very least, world class distortions that would send any honest person into painful contortions of the figurative if not literal kind

[NanceGreggs]

150. I'm not interested in this discussion any further.

People like you are going to believe what you want to believe, you're going to hear what you want to hear, you're going to interpret every comment, any phrase, every term, every word in keeping with whatever ridiculous notions you need to cling to.

You are not interested in fact, nor logic, nor common sense.

So you can just scoot along now, and mindlessly follow in lockstep behind the rest of the crowd.

[stupidicus]

151. of course not

you're just gonna repeat what is far more -- or in this case -- exclusively applicable to those like yourself. A reliance on projection is often the only recourse those without a valid/sustainable argument have.

So what maybe 95% of the world interpreted his admonition over real or imagined "sanctimoniousness" as being directly and solely tethered and applicable to the torturers, which is understandable given that even the common first grader could likely easily be made to understand that those not guilty of an offense consequently have no justifiable "sanctimoniousness" directed at them. Does BHO think we're all stupid and need to be told who was deserving of our loathing and scorn in this case? It's those of you in the remaining 5% that have the monopoly on the facts (his clear and certain framing of those operating under duress, etc) and a logical and common sense interpretation of those facts/rhetoric?

Too funny

Where's his condemnation of the torturers? Oh that's right, his unwillingness to pursue prosecutions shows in an of itself that he likiely sees them as being closer to patriots than the war criminals that they are, no? And apparently you haven't much of a problem with their status as such, based on your lack of criticisms for his refusal to prosecute them.

Who needs to be told that those who didn't torture aren't deserving of sanctimoniousness, and why didn't he single them out for praise so as to establish the bright line of demarcation between the two?

And given that he's been criticized/condemned from so many quarters over what the real and unimagined patriot designation for the torturers that his rhetoric resulted in, why hasn't he corrected the record if it's even close to the defamation level his enamored apologists like yourself claim? Does he like the idea that he's been charged with calling them patriots? Of course he does, that's why he did it to begin with. Gee, how hard would a statement like "No, I don't think torturers are patriots as is being alleged due to my prior remarks" be to make?

So you can just scoot along now, and mindlessly follow in lockstep behind the rest of the crowd.

[LondonReign2]

142. While you debate what the meaning of "is" is, I'm curious...

When you do you think Obama should start prosecuting those responsible for torture?

[CRH]

33. This ones a keeper Will, ...

K&R

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. Not in my name anymore

Torture, and Obama's refusal to prosecute the war criminals involved, was one of the main reasons I moved to Canada.

Not in my name, not with my tax dollars no longer.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. There is no error so monstrous that it fails to find defenders among the ablest men. Lord Acton

[KingCharlemagne]

96. That is one hell of a quote, right up there with the more famous "power corrupts" quote. Thanks - nt

[young_at_heart]

42. Dick Cheney says he has no regrets???

Wouldn't a 'normal' person feel even a little bit of regret about such horrific circumstances?

[rhett o rick]

50. Small Dick Cheney is a sociopath at best and psychopath at worst but Pres Obama understands.

We were scared and therefore that justifies our actions. Laws don't apply when you are scared.

[KingCharlemagne]

97. Cheney has 'other priorities'. Don't get me started - nt

[BootinUp]

49. People who complain about how Obama shut the shit down and

revealed it, don't impress me much.

[napkinz]

52. K&R

nt

[Owl]

54. K&R

[marym625]

58. Not In Our Name

Remember that? Remember the resistance to the insanity that is George Bush and Dick Cheney? Remember the pledge? Remember the songs?

Not in my name will you fight
Not in my name will you kill
Not in my name will you burn a child
Not in my name will you lie
Not in my name will you invade
Not in my name will you rape
Not in my name will you terrorize
Not in my name will you lie

Evidently, our President doesn't

K&R William. Well done

[stupidicus]

64. this is by far the worst defensive effort of his enamored fans

Hell, the war crime that was the Iraq war where millions were killed, maimed, and displaced, is/was just a "dumb war" we were lied into by apparently "dumb" patriots, so I found his remarks about the patriots/war criminals here predictable other than the "sanctimonious" part.

I suppose we coulda been spared that if we'd promised just to call it "dumb" torture.

[marym625]

90. and they are still defending him.

Many anyway. Some have come around

[Odin2005]

128. They have no shame.

[Odin2005]

65. Obama is dead to me, he's no better than any Puke.

I am ashamed for voting for him.

[WilliamPitt]

72. Last paragraph

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/25430-the-dumpster-fire-of-obamas-moral-authority

[F4lconF16]

84. +1

I lost what respect I still had for him that day. He may be my president, and I will support his (non-corporatist) policies, and defend him to some extent against the racism and insanity of the right, but his cowardice on a critical, clearly-defined issue disgusted me. I do not like war criminals, and I do not like their defenders.

He will be remembered for those words.

[In_The_Wind]

114. +1

[sheshe2]

127. Your last paragraph~

The presidency of Barack Obama ended on Friday, August 1st, 2014, as far as I am concerned. He'll sit in that round room until January of 2017, but he can go peddle his platitudes elsewhere. By lining up with and defending the torturers, he has added his name to the roll call of shame that continues to dishonor this nation. I no longer have any interest in what he has to say.

Good to hear you will no longer write about the President since you no longer have any interest in what he has to say. Your words and we will be sure to hold you to that promise. Words matter after all~

Thanks Will, you just made my day.

[marym625]

91. Me too.

I was when I did it the second time. Just thought he would be better than Romney. Mow, I don't think it would have much different at all.

[KingCharlemagne]

99. You should not be ashamed of voting for him, imo, for he appealed in 2008

to the better angels in our nature and I assume you heard and responded to that appeal, as did I. If his words turned out to be so much ash in the mouth, that's no reason be ashamed, I don't believe. Disappointed, yes. Ashamed, no. To be ashamed is to be ashamed of the better angels of our nature.

[woo me with science]

134. This was a Trojan horse presidency from the beginning.

Working for the same agenda since the beginning.

A tool of the criminal, looting, torturing corporate/MIC oligarchy wearing a democracy costume.

And most of the apologistic swill you hear while they are impoverishing millions and sodomizing children in front of their parents is the oligarchy's propaganda machine, paid for with our tax dollars

[JEB]

74. It is fucking torture.

every fucking simpleton and half baked idiot knows full well that it is against the law and has been punished by death. Willful premeditated horrendous acts. If the officials in charge are not prosecuted then you might as well throw open the doors of all our prisons. These atrocities will never be forgotten by the world.

[KingCharlemagne]

95. I've read many fine columns by you over the years, but this must surely

rank as one of the finest. (Kudos for the takedown of The New York Times and print and broadcast media at large, btw.)

Sincere hat tip. Bookmarked and shared the source piece to all members of my social network.

[woo me with science]

122. kick

[JustAnotherGen]

132. If you have friends or connections abroad

Now is the time for them to reach out to their governments and respectfully request that they impart sanctions programs against the USA - naming specific sanctions.

We have these and they cross check to our OFAC and BIS lists. If Charles Taylor's son could be caught and imprisoned trying to enter the US illegally (he was forbidden) with a fake passport/documentation -

Then a valid passport from someone like Cheney should prevent him from coming into countries that choose to do so - or risk imprisonment for breaking their laws.

We do it - why can't the top 20 countries that US Citizens travel to?


ETA - a link to the 5 page PDF at treasury.gov on Charles Taylor. We got his son on this one . . .

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/liberia.pdf

II. OVERVIEW OF AUTHORITIES
On July 22, 2004, the President issued E.O. 13348 invoking the authority of, inter alia, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §1701 et seq.), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.), and section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (“UNPA”). E.O. 13348 also noted United Nations Security Council Resolution (“UNSCR”) 1521 and UNSCR 1532 which, inter alia, directed member states to impose an asset freeze on certain senior members of former Liberian President Charles Taylor's government and certain other persons and to prevent the importation into their territories of all rough diamonds, round logs, and timber products originating in Liberia. In UNSCR 1689 of June 20, 2006, the United Nations Security Council lifted its requirements concerning the importation of round logs and timber products set forth in UNSCR 1521. In accordance with that decision, OFAC subsequently authorized certain round log and timber product importation into the United States. Similarly, in UNSCR 1753 of April 27, 2007, the United Nations Security Council lifted its requirements concerning diamond imports from Liberia. Since May 2007, when Liberia became an approved Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (“KPCS”) participant, rough diamond imports into the United States have been permitted, provided they are made in compliance with the KPCS and the Rough Diamonds Controls Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 592.
On May 23, 2007, OFAC issued the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor Sanctions Regulations to implement E.O. 13348. See 31 C.F.R. Part 593 (the “Regulations”).

[Babel_17]

133. I'm wondering if it doesn't boil down to prosecuting ones predecessor

In this instance, the commission of crimes came from instigation from above. Everything here relates to war powers and National Security. The buck stops at the highest levels.

It's important to remember that the AG doesn't work for POTUS, but in effect any prosecution of the top of the previous administration is only likely to happen with the consent of the President.

I'm no student of law but I imagine every President going back to Johnson, and maybe beyond, could have cause to fear a vindictive DOJ, in the hands of ones successor, of another party. And I think this will remain true, going forward.

I say this only as context. I have opinions as to our options but I'm aware of some of the ramifications. I will say this: We are here today, in the state we are in, partly because it was expedient to get past Vietnam, to get past Iran-Contra, to get past the Saving and Loans scandal, and so on, and so on. Now we are looking at a landscape recently deformed by the destruction of Iraq and the collapse of our financial system.

There are arguments for each of several approaches in requiring accountability. I just hope that the cost of not going far enough is weighed in.

One last thought that I posted elsewhere, regarding pardons. I think President Obama should have people seek out someone who truly regrets going along with illegal orders to torture. Allow that person to apply for a pardon on the condition that guilt is openly admitted. I think this action will resonate and help clarify debate in the public forum.

[Sunlei]

136. The first step toward some Justice is to make the horror PUBLIC. similar to why police hate cams.

why Ag. corps try to make it a crime to video animal abuse.

They know they can't, they will not survive for long in the light of full exposure.

[woo me with science]

138. kick

[Crewleader]

140. You know what I always admired about you William...

when you knew you were wrong you would say so, but here, you're not wrong, you speak the truth my friend.

[woo me with science]

146. kick

[sheshe2]

147. Rank and Reeking

Hmmm~ Yup

Something stinks in Denmark and it is not this President,