2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary supported limited torture. Sanders? Never. Ever. nt
Last edited Wed Aug 26, 2015, 09:36 PM - Edit history (1)
Sanders:
A great nation must be prepared to acknowledge its errors. This report details an ugly chapter in American history during which our leaders and the intelligence community dishonored our nations proud traditions, said Sen. Bernie Sanders. Of course we must aggressively pursue international terrorists who would do us harm, but we must do so in a way that is consistent with the basic respect for human rights which makes us proud to be Americans.
The United States must not engage in torture. If we do, in an increasingly brutal world, we lose our moral standing to condemn other nations or groups that engage in uncivilized behavior, the senator added.
Hillary
In Dec. 2014, virtually her first statements on torture came after the CIA torture report was released and all she has to say is:
"Today we can say again in a loud and clear voice, the United States should never condone or practice torture anywhere in the world, Clinton said.
"That should be absolutely clear as a matter of both policy and law, including our international treaty obligations, and if that requires new legislation, then Congress should work with President Obama to quickly enact it and it shouldn't be an issue of partisan politics," Clinton said of eliminating the use of torture techniques.
"If Kennedy were alive, he would say that it is "possible to keep us safe from terrorism and reduce crime and violence without relying on torture abroad or unnecessary force or excessive incarceration at home," she said.
--------------------------------------
Aside from the obvious differences in these two quotes in terms of levels of disgust, one statement acknowledges the shame brought on our country by what was done. The other one is a "don't look back, don't acknowledge" statement. Hillary treats the Senate Report as if it is an unwelcome visitor to the dinner table bringing bad news. She is also well-known for her belief that the torturers should not have faced prosecution since they were "following orders" (google it folks, its true).
In 2007, she was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning water-boarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.
"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibility. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it's reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."
But for Sanders, and O'Malley for example, you will see no waffling or testing focus groups for their ethical position on torture. This is meaningful. Again, a sign, to ignore or say "Wait a minute... how can you WAFFLE on something like torture if you are a thoughtful and ethical person?"
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Unless you are a linguist doing a statistical analysis.
But for the record, Hillary didn't use words like "shame" that denote or signify disgust. Nor did she even acknowledge that what we did was wrong. All she said is that going forward, we must not engage in torture.
It is her past indecision about whether torture is in itself beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior that puts greater focus on her own lack of disgust in the practice.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)pretty good statement.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Which one?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)the future.
sanders statement was fine. clintons statement was as fine, and more
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)From: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/421680/-Dear-Hillary-Is-torture-torture#
better link to audio ---> http://ia801404.us.archive.org/10/items/HillaryOnTickingBombTorture/tickingbomb_01.mp3
"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibility. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it's reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."
PolitiFact weighs in: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/01/barack-obama/clinton-changed-on-torture/
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Are you confused?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The corporate half of the party is too much like republicans for me to support them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cause you were not liking the replies. i looked and looked. i saw no question asked to sanders about 'ticking time bomb'. where are you getting an answer about that from sanders? or Omalley for that matter.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what bullshit bonobo
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Or was she wrong when she changed her mind in 2008?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)is wrong.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Hillary supported torture.
She did - in a qualified way - and I explained that very clearly, no deception.
BUT there is a big difference in people that can condone even LIMITED torture and people that would NEVER consider it.
Hillary is one who would consider it. She did. As recently as 2007.
I have made that VERY clear.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Thanks for putting up the same quote as me.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Response to Bonobo (Original post)
Post removed
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But you just posted EXACTLY what I did and proved EXACTLY what I am saying.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I mean seriously I really don't think I did. Did I?
George II
(67,782 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts) Barack Obama on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 in Denver - JUDGED TRUE BY POLITIFACT.
link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/01/barack-obama/clinton-changed-on-torture/
Clinton changed on torture
By Angie Drobnic Holan on Friday, February 1st, 2008 at 12:00 a.m.
Barack Obama made his most direct case for the Democratic nomination at a speech on Jan. 30, 2008, in Denver. He criticized fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, arguing that he represents a more dramatic distinction with John McCain, the apparent Republican frontrunner after winning Florida's primary.
In making his argument, Obama attacked Clinton for voting with Republicans on national security issues, among other things.
After naming a number of areas where he said Clinton and McCain had the same positions, Obama attacked Clinton for diverging from McCain on the issue of torture. Clinton "actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed," Obama said.
It sounds a little convoluted, so here's the step-by-step.
In October 2006, Clinton spoke about exceptions to a no-torture policy when speaking to the New York Daily News. Clinton mentioned a "ticking time bomb" scenario in which a captured terrorist has knowledge of an imminent terror attack and interrogators want to use torture.
"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable," she said. "That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."
Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."
In the days after the debate, the Republican National Committee criticized her for flip-flopping, and Obama said he would oppose torture "without exception or equivocation," according to Daily News reports.
Did Clinton change position because of her talks with the generals or because of the "politics of the moment"? We can't see inside Clinton's head, so our ruling doesn't reflect on that part of the statement. But it is clear she changed her mind about the "ticking bomb" scenario. So we rate Obama's claim True.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Because they know he's not going to be president.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)because he wasn't running for president in 2007,
when the question was being asked.
DUH.