The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[NobodyHere]

I also love the fact that the CIA can spy on US Senate members with impunity,

Thanks Obama!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I also love the fact that the CIA can spy on US Senate members with impunity,

Thanks Obama!

And lie to Congress with impunity!

[Edward64]

I've read a couple news blurbs on the report but did not see anything regarding when the "enhanced interrogations" stopped?

Does not put the CIA in a good light.

[RainMaker]

Has the CIA ever been in a good light?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I also love the fact that the CIA can spy on US Senate members with impunity,

Thanks Obama!

Where did you see this reported?

I'm not disputing that perhaps it's real, but the CIA has no domestic charter and as a result activities in the US are supposed to be a no-no. We had to leave that kind of crap up to the NSA and FBI when I was there.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Where did you see this reported?

I'm not disputing that perhaps it's real, but the CIA has no domestic charter and as a result activities in the US are supposed to be a no-no. We had to leave that kind of crap up to the NSA and FBI when I was there.

Feinstein says CIA spied on Senate computers

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee accused the CIA of secretly removing classified documents from her staff's computers in the middle of an oversight investigation, while another lawmaker said Congress should "declare war" on the spy agency if it's true.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said CIA Director John Brennan told her in January that agency personnel searched the computers last year because they believed the panel's investigators might have gained access to materials on an internal review they were not authorized to see.

"The CIA did not ask the committee or its staff if the committee had access to the internal review or how we obtained it," Feinstein said in blistering remarks on the Senate floor. "Instead, the CIA just went and searched the committee's computer."

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Cue Jon: "The only thing shameful about it is that we didn't kill all those miserable sonsofbitches right away instead of wasting time torturing them."

Arguably immediate extrajudicial killing would have been considerably more humane, especially if done via normal execution means as opposed to, say, a drone strike (i.e. no chance of unintended collateral damage).

[Dutch]

Hmmmm...we could pull all our guys out of Quantanamo and return it to a bombing range. I'm even good with drones doing their thing although B-52's would make it more fun to watch on NPR.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Arguably immediate extrajudicial killing would have been considerably more humane, especially if done via normal execution means as opposed to, say, a drone strike (i.e. no chance of unintended collateral damage).

Yeah, put me in this camp if we had legitimate reasons to execute them(I'm guessing that in most cases yes)

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

Yeah, put me in this camp if we had legitimate reasons to execute them(I'm guessing that in most cases yes)

Well, good news, we have legitimate reasons to execute them. I'm all for getting it over with....we can even have the next President apologize for it. Winning all the way around.

[flere-imsaho]

Eh, we're conflating two different things (thanks Dutch!).

The torture wasn't done as any part of a quasi-judicial process. It was done, ostensibly, to get information. Only torture doesn't work to get information. On this topic I am still of the mind (as I have posted numerous times over the past 10 years) that other methods, like those the FBI used on some of the detainees, that produced actual actionable intel, should have been used instead.

On the judicial side, I still think we should have (still should) bring them into the court system if possible. I don't find the arguments that they would win acquittal convincing, especially for high value targets (like KSM). Where it gets murky is the use of drones (or otherwise) to essentially murder targets without any due process. This is due, mainly, to the murkiness of what constitutes a "battlefield" these days, and I think that's still a concept we're going to need to work through as a society.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

On the judicial side, I still think we should have (still should) bring them into the court system if possible. I don't find the arguments that they would win acquittal convincing, especially for high value targets (like KSM).

If we apply domestic criminal law to them they'd all have to be released immediately and no charges could ever be brought. If we made exceptions there, then they'd just be phony show proceedings. Especially when everybody would know that there's certain guys that aren't going anywhere regardless of the outcome in court. Acquittal on the merits isn't the only thing that precludes convictions. Violations of constitutional rights can as well.

Edit: And of course at this point we HAVE released most prisoners - the ones still there are the ones we're most worried about, and they're un-prosecutable at this point because of the torture alone, let alone speedy trial and admissible evidence issues.

[JPhillips]

I think there's a way to create some sort of military tribunal process that at least provides some definitive outcome to these cases. I'm somewhat flexible on the process, as long as there is a process.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Eh, we're conflating two different things (thanks Dutch!).

The torture wasn't done as any part of a quasi-judicial process. It was done, ostensibly, to get information. Only torture doesn't work to get information. On this topic I am still of the mind (as I have posted numerous times over the past 10 years) that other methods, like those the FBI used on some of the detainees, that produced actual actionable intel, should have been used instead.

On the judicial side, I still think we should have (still should) bring them into the court system if possible. I don't find the arguments that they would win acquittal convincing, especially for high value targets (like KSM). Where it gets murky is the use of drones (or otherwise) to essentially murder targets without any due process. This is due, mainly, to the murkiness of what constitutes a "battlefield" these days, and I think that's still a concept we're going to need to work through as a society.

I am completely against torture, but I do want our Intel teams to get answers...whatever works best and if the FBI has the ethical and best method they need to share that.

I will dumb down the "battlefield" argument. The USA hasn't declared war in 75 years, but we still get the terms...Vietnam War, Korean War, Iraq War, Afghanistan War. I get the legalese, but if we are comfortable and fairly unified in calling it a war, we need to be equal comfortable calling them battlefields. Unfortunately, I have no idea how that logic translates in the courts.

Perhaps a similar situation:
I do know the courts are fairly agile in calling something a hate crime even if the defendant hasn't admitted to being a racist or even admitting racist tendencies.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Perhaps a similar situation:
I do know the courts are fairly agile in calling something a hate crime even if the defendant hasn't admitted to being a racist or even admitting racist tendencies.

They are also pretty agile in calling something a murder, even if the defendant hasn't admitted to a murder or killing someone.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

If we apply domestic criminal law to them they'd all have to be released immediately and no charges could ever be brought.

Why?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Why?

The official line is that most of the evidence against them was obtained through torture, and because public trials would involve an unacceptable volume of classified material. A judge could also dismiss the charges based on any number of constitutional violations - speedy trial, inhumane pretrial conditions, lack of meaningful access to the courts and habeas corpus relief. It's not a legitimate prosecution strategy to imprison and torture someone for 15-20 years before you initiate trial proceedings. That permanently hampers your chance to build any kind of meaningful defense. You'd have to go back a long time to find examples of that kind of thing in U.S. criminal law, but it wouldn't fly today.

[AENeuman]

Funny how everyone blames the Congress for being too partisan and not doing anything, then when a bill is passed, filled with lots compromise, each side yells sell out and weakness

[flere-imsaho]

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant that I still believe we should have brought folks like KSM to trial much earlier, and in similar circumstances should attempt to do the same with people who do these things today.

I buy the argument that someone like KSM might get out of trial in a large part because of the torture.

I don't buy the argument that you can't try these guys in court due to national security / classified material. Because we have done so.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

They are also pretty agile in calling something a murder, even if the defendant hasn't admitted to a murder or killing someone.

Maybe I lost something in translation, but I feel like you are supporting my analogy and agreeing with me by presenting a similar analogy. We might have to make a note of this, if I'm reading you right.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Funny how everyone blames the Congress for being too partisan and not doing anything, then when a bill is passed, filled with lots compromise, each side yells sell out and weakness

Ah, American politics. No one is ever happy.

[JPhillips]

Cheney is now completely morally bankrupt.

Host Chuck Todd asked Cheney to respond to the Senate Intelligence Committee report's account that one detainee was "chained to the wall of a cell, doused with water, froze to death in CIA custody."

"And it turned out it was a case of mistaken identity," Todd said.

"Right," Cheney responded. "But the problem I have was with all of the folks that we did release that end up back on the battlefield."

"I’m more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent," he continued.

Todd pressed Cheney, asking if he was okay with the fact that about 25 percent of the detainees interrogated were actually innocent.

"I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. And our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11 and it is to avoid another attack against the United States," Cheney responded.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cheney is now completely morally bankrupt.

Like he wasn't before?

I really hope this guy goes overseas and summarily jailed for being a war criminal. Because he is.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, but at least he had the decency to lie about torture before. Now he's proud of torturing and killing innocents.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yeah, but at least he had the decency to lie about torture before. Now he's proud of torturing and killing innocents.

That's one way to spin it. He may be very defensive, but he's also very proud of the accomplishments after 9/11 in getting the bad guys. The assumption that anybody is perfect in war is the morally bankrupt argument.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's one way to spin it. He may be very defensive, but he's also very proud of the accomplishments after 9/11 in getting the bad guys. The assumption that anybody is perfect in war is the morally bankrupt argument.

He's expressed zero regret for torturing and killing innocents. This isn't about perfection, this is about a guy that has stated that killing innocents doesn't bother him. If that isn't morally bankrupt, I don't know what is.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He's expressed zero regret for torturing and killing innocents. This isn't about perfection, this is about a guy that has stated that killing innocents doesn't bother him. If that isn't morally bankrupt, I don't know what is.

He actually doesn't believe it was torture. He's on the record as saying (paraphrasing mine) "we were very careful to stop short of torture."

[JPhillips]

That's the company line so they don't get prosecuted for war crimes. They don't deny that the techniques listed in the Senate report happened. Anal feedings, waterboarding, etc. are internationally defined as torture regardless of what Cheney says.

[Dutch]

You want him prosecuted for war crimes but not terrorists? Your partisan efforts are laughable dude, sorry.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He's expressed zero regret for torturing and killing innocents. This isn't about perfection, this is about a guy that has stated that killing innocents doesn't bother him. If that isn't morally bankrupt, I don't know what is.

Whose or which culture's or which authority are you basing morality on? Does such morality changes depending upon the circumstances or the person in question? What would be criteria for being morally bankrupt as oppose to partially bankrupt? I believe it is so easy to point fingers at those with obvious hardened hears (such Cheney) but it is less easy to point fingers at yourself or others that are not so obvious.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Whose or which culture's or which authority are you basing morality on? Does such morality changes depending upon the circumstances or the person in question? What would be criteria for being morally bankrupt as oppose to partially bankrupt? I believe it is so easy to point fingers at those with obvious hardened hears (such Cheney) but it is less easy to point fingers at yourself or others that are not so obvious.

He only holds old white Republicans with much regard...everybody else apparently doesn't know better. So they are exempt.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You want him prosecuted for war crimes but not terrorists? Your partisan efforts are laughable dude, sorry.

Actually I've said I'm fine with military tribunals for suspected terrorists, but keep fucking that chicken!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Whose or which culture's or which authority are you basing morality on? Does such morality changes depending upon the circumstances or the person in question? What would be criteria for being morally bankrupt as oppose to partially bankrupt? I believe it is so easy to point fingers at those with obvious hardened hears (such Cheney) but it is less easy to point fingers at yourself or others that are not so obvious.

I'd agree with that, but I don't think the answer is excusing all abhorrent behavior. There are things that should be called as out of bounds for a decent human or a decent government.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd agree with that, but I don't think the answer is excusing all abhorrent behavior. There are things that should be called as out of bounds for a decent human or a decent government.

I agree but you're talking about laws and ethics which all citizens of a country should be bound to. The minute you and others start throwing out the word morality (in terms of a person), you are talking about something different altogether - not to mention that there is no such thing as a nation's morality (which seems to be a common phrase recently).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Actually I've said I'm fine with military tribunals for suspected terrorists, but keep fucking that chicken!

Well, harp on that a little more than all the other bullshit you harp on. Your reality is apparently not connected with your post counts suggesting otherwise.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I agree but you're talking about laws and ethics which all citizens of a country should be bound to. The minute you and others start throwing out the word morality (in terms of a person), you are talking about something different altogether - not to mention that there is no such thing as a nation's morality (which seems to be a common phrase recently).

I don't have the same issues with the word as you, but I'm fine changing it to abhorrent if that works better. My original point was that Cheney is completely out of bounds for a decent society. I have no problem defending that position.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, harp on that a little more than all the other bullshit you harp on. Your reality is apparently not connected with your post counts suggesting otherwise.

Let's see the times when I've said terrorists shouldn't be prosecuted. If I've said it a lot it shouldn't be hard for you to find.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's the company line so they don't get prosecuted for war crimes. They don't deny that the techniques listed in the Senate report happened. Anal feedings, waterboarding, etc. are internationally defined as torture regardless of what Cheney says.

Oh I realize that.

I'm just pointing out that his shittyness is even moreso than your comment.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Whose or which culture's or which authority are you basing morality on? Does such morality changes depending upon the circumstances or the person in question? What would be criteria for being morally bankrupt as oppose to partially bankrupt? I believe it is so easy to point fingers at those with obvious hardened hears (such Cheney) but it is less easy to point fingers at yourself or others that are not so obvious.

In this case, I'd go with the Geneva convention.

[Dutch]

Pelosi, Dems 'fully aware' of CIA interrogation techniques, says former agency official | Fox News

[JPhillips]

Yeah, there's plenty of Dems, including Obama that are culpable to some degree.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Pelosi, Dems 'fully aware' of CIA interrogation techniques, says former agency official | Fox News

And they should all face trial before the ICC too.

Along with Bush, Cheney, etc.

[Dutch]

The reality is that we've known she knew what Cheney knew for a long time and yet, nobody on the left really cared because she's on your team...and the discussion on TV all week was about burning Republicans at the stake, not Democrats. It's all a partisan farce if you ask me.

[JPhillips]

There is a substantive difference between knowing and ordering.

But my concern is that this never happens again, so I'm fine with whatever accomplishes that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There is a substantive difference between knowing and ordering.

But my concern is that this never happens again, so I'm fine with whatever accomplishes that.

While I agree with you, to the extent that they voted to fund the agencies/programs that undertook it instead of voting against them or inserting specific riders prohibiting it (symbolic as it may have been since the money would no doubt be found elsewhere in those agencies budgets) IMHO makes them at least somewhat culpable. Not as much as those who ordered/developed it, but they didn't do anything from their positions of power to even symbolically oppose it.

[JPhillips]

Look above. I said they were culpable.

But the reason this week has been about Cheney et al. is because those were the architects of the program. They created and justified the program, so of course the coverage is about them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Look above. I said they were culpable.

But the reason this week has been about Cheney et al. is because those were the architects of the program. They created and justified the program, so of course the coverage is about them.

I think the release of the report has spurred things obviously. And you're not seeing Pelosi et. al. coming out to defend it, so they're not making themselves natural targets.

Plus like you said, architects vs. enablers.

Both culpable, but one moreso than the other.

[JPhillips]

I wish the country would unite and shame all of those that created or okayed the torture programs. It's a huge stain on our honor that we will all move on with no one facing any consequences.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, harp on that a little more than all the other bullshit you harp on. Your reality is apparently not connected with your post counts suggesting otherwise.

Some things are given and go without saying. Prosecuting terrorists is one of those.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Some things are given and go without saying. Prosecuting terrorists is one of those.

Fair, I guess we all need to be a little more outspoken when it comes to prosecuting Republicans.