General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKalidurga
(14,177 posts)many people did not read it that way. I read it that some people in the war were patriots and other's well they tortured people and they were wrong. And that nothing is going to be done cuz it's history or some lame thing. So, yeah it is lame. But, it doesn't give rise to the monstrous claim you are making.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)because he didn't.
Full linear 3 paragraph excerpt from the press conference.
I understand why it happened. I think its 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 its 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.
But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that's what that report reflects. And that's the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)but, then I am one of those weirdo's that think time and space can change the meaning of a phrase.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)it that he did not outright condemn the torture or those who did it. You can weasel around forever with the specific words, like people did with Clinton's "Did not have sexual relations," but in the end he blinked when it came time to clean out the festering wound.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)deurbano
(2,895 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)
That's creepy enough on its own.
brush
(53,787 posts)"A lot of those folks". Not all, and certainly, not the ones who committed torture. Did most of the people in law enforcement and national security commit torture? The answer is clearly no. Many in the CIA objected, protested and left their jobs because of it. These people certainly are patriots. And there were a lot of them."
Does that not say the people who left their jobs are the patriots, but certainly not the ones who committed torture?
Demit
(11,238 posts)You're quoting directly from a thread someone started yesterday! Assertions that that poster made without providing evidence, any links to prove that what he said was true. If you can show a cite for his assertionsnow yoursI think we'd all love to see it.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)therefore not everyone who was doing that job were called patriots
deal with it
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Glad we got that out of the way
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Yeah, and given the context, we're talking about torture.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques'
I despise this language first of all. 'Extraordinary interrogation techniques'. He means TORTURE. America tortures! Everyone knows it, everyone HAS known it, for years. The only people in denial about it or unaware of it, are Americans.
But only SOME? Is there a list of which tortures are okay and which are not.
I remember the anger at the Bush gang when people learned what they were doing, the sheer depravity of it.
I guess they though people got over it. I cannot get over it. Some of what I read back then, it was, sorry, I just can't find the words to describe it.
JEB
(4,748 posts)Torture is already banned by by International treaty which we signed. To not enforce such laws is also a crime. We prosecuted and executed others for equal crimes.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)praise in with comments about torture?
Geez Louise, I'd like MY compliments from the POTUS all nice and cleanly separated from any "tortured folks" talk! Call me crazy!
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)It's a New American Century and all of DC is on board. Full Steam Ahead. The New "Defense" secretary provides a clue as to what is coming down the pike
...Previously, Ashton Carter was a senior partner of Global Technology Partners focused on advising investment firms in technology and defense, and an advisor to Goldman Sachs on global affairs...
...During the Bush administration, he was also a member of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's International Security Advisory Board...
...In 2006, he authored a report advocating use or threat of force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
If you don't like Torture and the New American Century perhaps you're a terrorist. Or a racist. The NSA will put you on a special list.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)We have a horrible incident on 911.
The public is in fear and pressure builds to find those responsible and stop any further such acts.
Those directly involved decide to use "tactics" not typically used to gather info.
These "tactics" were all employed with the best of intentions and with utmost urgency - hence the use of "patriot" to describe those involved.
Those committing torture were not singled out as "patriots", but those trying to directly deal with this situation were. And some of those tortured.
Last edited Sat Dec 13, 2014, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)
This report didn't interview any detainees. It's all based on CIA memos that weren't scrubbed like the videos. You know way worse happened. Supposedly the interrogations the US military did on base included Iraqi interrogators sodomizing children in front of their parents to extract info. And I bet FOX news would defend it because Bush and Cheney were at helm. It's sickening. Even the Nazis called themselves patriots. Of course Cheney and the ilk defend themselves to save THEIR OWN ASSES. They use 911 to commit even more crimes and in my opinion facilitated that event. The shills at FOX should get public beatings for the crap they are saying today. It's disgusting. I hope they suffer soon.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Yet people are defending it and defending ignoring it like this is a handful of traffic tickets.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Watch the whole speech.
Read the whole text.
cstanleytech
(26,294 posts)They are also giant douchebags for using torture of course and yes they can be both patriots and a douchebag that commits the crime of torture just like anyone here can be a douchebag and commit a crime but still be a patriot.
So my advice is learn to deal with the fact that we have some douchebag patriots just like we had some douchebag founding fathers who thought slavery was ok.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)cstanleytech
(26,294 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I think he purposely worded it for ambiguous messages and signals for a reason so one could read into what they wanted.
He needed to reassure the masses that torture was wrong and we did it.
He needed to send a message to the intelligence agencies that you are safe. Hence the patriot message.
I can see how both sides of the argument ..yes he did ... no he didn't.
Eschew obfuscation", also stated as "eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation", is a humorous fumblerule used by English teachers and professors when lecturing about proper writing techniques.
Literally, the phrase means "avoid being unclear" or "avoid being unclear, support being clear", but the use of relatively uncommon words causes confusion, making the statement an example of irony, and more precisely a heterological phrase.
sendero
(28,552 posts)..... why take a stand when you can place yourself in the mushy middle and try to please everyone. This has been Obama's M.O. from the start and why he is a weak president.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)he's a master wordsmith and I can see how some would say he did not though I do not agree....since there is no accountability.
he said it the way he did on purpose.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I'm a patriot' We are all patriots''
Look under your seats and just move on.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Let's look forward walking backwards
Nudge-nudge-know-what-a-mean?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)he thought of them as patriots.
The big whistle is his failure to prosecute such heinous crimes.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Lots of vile, deliberate "2+2=5" being intoned through the telescreens today.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)And they tortured soldiers and Native Americans as they saw fit.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)It's like saying "I'm against rape, but she's hot so I understand why it happened."
Umm, no. You don't do that. Criminals are criminals and should be called criminals.
And yes, to the "patriot" question... yes, he was including the torturers and trying to explain their "lapse of judgment" and have us look at how they are to be forgiven because they are patriots.
Some of you all are in denial.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)of those who keep trying to twist Obama's words to mean what they don't mean and to escape what they do mean.
Agents of the U.S. government, acting on orders from the highest level(s) of that government, routinely and systematically violated the laws against torture. Those agents broke the law and those who gave the orders and set the policies broke the law.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)What I do give a damn about is that he is once again giving a free pass to evil, making sure that it will happen again. Seems to sum up his entire tenure.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's what you want us to believe?
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)consequences that must be viewed and balanced. I know we all can stand on principles of right and wrong, with wrongs demanding punishment; but in his world ... the real world ... it's NOT that easy.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Besides your understanding of individual punishment as a deterrent to classes of crimes is flawed. Yes, rounding up criminals and executing them will stop THEM from committing another crime; it does nothing to prevent those inclined to commit that same crime, from doing so.
Stringing up every one of the torturers, will not stop torture ... Jailing every "Criminal Bankster" will do nothing to prevent the next generation of fraudsters.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I didn't say that.
I said that you over-estimate the deterrent power of jail, even the death penalty, on crimes ... particularly, on things like torture and financial crimes (i.e., Wall street).
Those willing to torture do so because they have something they value more than their own lives (as misplaced as that might be) and corporations (banks) will always find someone willing to commit (thinly veiled) fraud in the name of profits. Jailing these individuals will not stop that ... and it certainly has not been a boon for terrorism worldwide (whatever that means).
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)As well as penance, and retribution.
Are you trying to say that these people tortured other people out of a sense of patriotism ("something they value more than their own lives" ?
And it has been a marketing point for the terrorists, in ther view, they recruit people to fight against the evil empire that tortures and bombs children.
treestar
(82,383 posts)since he did not prosecute Bush?
I'm assuming some people have been prosecuted for torture since he took office. It's a crime on the books and someone may have been prosecuted.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)robinlynne
(15,481 posts)stand against (torture, in this instance), you are helping it to happen. Obama just defended crimes judged at nuremburg, so they would never happen again. Obama rationalized torture. You can not do that and be on the side of good.
capech?
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Jesus
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)still_one
(92,219 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I know what you are but what am I?
That's it? Really?
Geeze people.
BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)BenzoDia
(1,010 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)You seem to begin with what you want to believe, and then ignore everything that doesn't agree with that.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Not just here.
Anywhere.
Ever.
Right after saying "We tortured some folks," he said this:
"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."
Where's the gray area?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)we got from bushbots. You'd think even the most devoted loyalist would be able to occasionally say "The president is full of shit on this, but I still support him", but no, reality simply gets wished into the cornfield every time.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's like Grant Morrison's "Invisibles" or "A Beautiful Mind" with a tiny segment reading different messages in what everyone else is reading
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Why don't you quote the whole thing in it's entirety? Dare you.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)sanctimonious" about people doing NORMAL THINGS?????
"I'm eating dinner now. Don't get too sanctimonious about it."
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)t. This was a response to 4 years of investigating TORTURE. nothing else. there is no else.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)... to "edit" Obama's remarks, I see. And I can see why it's necessary - because if you look at the statement IN FULL, it doesn't say what you want it to say.
"Right after saying "We tortured some folks," he said this ..."
But he DIDN'T say that "right after", did he, Will? There was a lot more to the statement - but again, what you've chosen to omit is inconvenient to the narrative you're trying to promote.
First you "edit" Obama's remarks, and now you're just out-and-out lying by saying "right after" he said something, he continued on with with something else - when he obviously didn't.
"Editing" the president's remarks to omit relevant sentences? Well, it's not just for FOX-News anymore!
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Truth and reality be damned.
the truth doesn't play well with your game plan, so I get it.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Then he'll be holding those responsible when?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)your "if" - "then" scenario is pretty stupid.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Really simple question all of you scramble to avoid.
When?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)-he'll gut sopcial security,
-he won't ever support gay marriage,
- he hates, he does, he doesn't do, he calludes, he ignores...etc after all that crap trying to read Obama's mind about a million topics, you want me to read his mind on this too?
Again, a totally stupid post.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)My posts are just so "stupid", I'm sorry they are so hard for you.
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I will refuse to make up shit and will deal with facts only.
if you haven't been able to figure that out by now, you are a little beyond any help.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)I didn't realize asking when Obama was going to prosecute the torturers was "making up shit".
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you can repeat your stupid question ad nauseum, but it still doesn't make it answerable. you are not being clever, you are not painting me into a proverbial corner, you are not noble or wise or progressive, your repeated question is idiotic.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?
You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, tight?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)your not being able to prove a negative is about as likely as my being able to read Obama, Congressional and DOJ minds.
Do you finally get it?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and I resent that you are pretending the idiotic quetions wasn't repeated ad nauseum.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Is this so hard to answer?
You want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I want him to. I know that much.
I can't believe they wont' answer this question. The other one, they wiggled out of without answering, by claiming not to read minds, but this one, they could answer very easily. They should know whether or not they want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)spreading lies seems to be an on going meme on Du today.
Do a little homework so you don't come across as ignorant.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Because of course saying they were patriots would be, you know, sort of a justification for not prosecuting those responsible.
When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)sort of throws the rest of you statement into the realm of grasping at straws bwahha haa haa
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)When is Obama going to prosecute those responsible for torture?
You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)that is a statement...thanks
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You want him to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)thanks for playing
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You want Obama to prosecute those responsible for torture, right?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)We must not lose sight of the danger of being sanctimonious.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)is more interested in debating the meaning of "is" than discussing Obama's lack of actually holding anyone responsible
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)People were 'sanctimonious' about officials who committed torture. Was anyone sanctimonious about officials who were under pressure but didn't torture? No. He was speaking of those who committed torture.
What he did not say is torture is wrong and is a crime no matter when, no matter who - American or not, no matter what the circumstance.
He did not say torturers weaken the nation not strengthen it - those who tortured are not patriots.
He fought the release of the report. This isn't tricky and it isn't multi-dimensional chess.
Beringia
(4,316 posts)instead of saying it is illegal and a crime.
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)Apparently, if you have the appropriate security clearance, or if you're a major campaign donor, no matter what you do there will not be jail time, trials, not even charges. Just the warmth blanket of 'Patriotism'.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)The thread directly below this on my Last Replied page is entitled "I am noticing a lot of full-blown denial over Obama calling torturers 'patriots' on DU."
What a fantastic coincidence, huh?
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)Andy823
(11,495 posts)obnoxiousdrunk
(2,910 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)JVS
(61,935 posts)But I'm not sure that such obfuscation is to his credit either.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Where did he say "torturers are patriots"?
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Tough times, fear, confusion.. so we tortured some folks.
Given that context, I'm not sure who ELSE he would be talking about other than people who share in the responsibility FOR torture.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)As they so richly deserve.
pa28
(6,145 posts)They'll argue semantics all day long if necessary to support whatever objective reality is convenient for them at the time.
Just don't do it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)All these hangups on semantics. Clearly he said crimes were committed and now it will be interesting to see what is done about it.
Marr
(20,317 posts)is just... well, it's sickening, and it undermines the whole notion of law.
Rex
(65,616 posts)this is all about hating Obama. You would think by now that they would realize that bullshit distraction doesn't work and never did.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)why would he say something like that? Because he wanted to rile the left up? Seriously? Perhaps you should consider that you are mistaken about his meaning.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)anyone on this forum.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)So maybe you need to revisit some of your other assumptions.
Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)
Post removed
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Admit there is a problem with leaders who deliver ambiguous meaning messages that are supposed to satisfy everyone's quest.
You can't please all of the people all of the time
and if the "base" were EVER your people, you certainly have not pleased them, Mr. President.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If it seems vague to you as to who he was calling 'patriots', well, that's because he was diffusing the blame. He was sort of casually lumping everyone into one group and saying, 'hey, they meant well'.
The entire over-arching message of that statement was one of minimizing the crime of torture. That is undeniable. The torturers and the people who instituted the policies were not tried or prosecuted. That is undeniable.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)clearly because he feels they were acting out of patriotic zeal, and thus should be excused.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)percent.
It is a very carefully planned event, will happen in 2016, and it will be very painful and we will deserve it because we as a collective whole in America are unwilling to do anything about it.