The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I think that I heard a while back the opposite was true actually. With people making less money or even out of jobs who has the money for a lawyer and to be paying bills on two households (let alone one)?

Yeah...kinda the reasons our grandparents' & earlier generations just tended to "tough it out".

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Are you basing that on gut instinct or actual data? I haven't researched it myself but would tend to believe the opposite to be true.

It was based on gut instinct but after getting into work, I found some data that I think muddies the waters. It would seem proceedings are done in this study:

Divorce rates decline during the Great Recession

thumbnail

by Hans Eisenbeis

WHAT’S HAPPENING

* When times get tough, the tough stay married. Divorce courts and lawyers saw a dramatic drop in divorce proceedings as the economy worsened in 2008. In Chicago, for example, there was a 5% drop in filings in the first three quarters of 2008 — before things got really ugly (MarketWatch.com 12.21.08). The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reports that 37% of its membership has seen a drop in business.
* While the leading cause of divorce may be money issues, a recession causes many couples to stick it out. Why? Because the cost of establishing a second household on the same income is simply not feasible to many Americans.

This says the Recessions have a minor effect on the numbers but dont say which way the effect is. Should I assume upwards?

http://www.totaldivorce.com/news/art...orce-link.aspx

According to Census Bureau figures, recessions have only had minor effects on divorce rates over the past 25 years. The only time in the last 75 years that a sharp rise in divorces has been recorded was just after World War II, but Americans now carry the burden of more debt than they have in the past, so it is not known how many may divorce during the current recession. There is some speculation that a historic spike in divorce rates could be on the way.

and another says in NJ the numbers showed a decline (or perhaps more using mediation - but I would consider that having the same result)

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news...recession.html

NJ's divorce rate declines in recession
TEXT SIZE Increase text size Decrease text size
The Associated Press

Breaking up is hard to do in a recession.

This article confirms that during the recession it would make more sense to stay together during the recession...

http://www.coloradoconnection.com/ne...aspx?id=272784

The number of new divorce cases filed in New Jersey during the first six months of the year fell 9 percent compared with the same period a year ago.

Family law experts say the 28,579 cases reflect economic uncertainty.

Meanwhile, the number of divorce cases reopened as former spouses seek to revise alimony increased 6 percent in the first six months of the year.

Officials say some Garden State couples are staying together until real estate and stock portfolios rebound. Others are mediating their differences outside of court to limit the cost of breaking up.
Advertisement

Couples can seek a collaborative divorce, in which they negotiate a separation before going to court.

In summary, it was my gut instinct based on the "when times are tough, money gets tight, leading cause of breakup, hence increase in divorce." I failed to account for the costs involved with divorce.

I was wrong it would appear.

Edit to add: after further reading it would seem the divorce rate actually goes up once were firmly in Recovery. I guess it bottlenecks or something.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

In summary, it was my gut instinct based on the "when times are tough, money gets tight, leading cause of breakup, hence increase in divorce." I failed to account for the costs involved with divorce.

I was wrong it would appear.

Or...it could just mean that recession plants the seeds for divorces in the booms?

[Flasch186]

yeah im reading that too.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Just highlighting a few of your points to ask the question....why do you think Obama & Holder would do this? Yes...they might be pussies...but maybe it's a bit more complex.

Oh, I know exactly why this has come about. First, Obama's on record as not being terribly interested in investigating the abuses of the Bush Administration, preferring instead to "move on". I can see why he prefers this route, certainly, even if I would prefer it if a great number of the criminals in the Bush Administration see some jail time.

Second, I'm going to guess that Holder is responding to immense pressure from the ACLU torture investigations that have been going on for years now, bolstered by FOI requests, leaks, newspaper investigations, etc.... I'm sure Holder views an investigation into the criminality of torture acts as a first step towards doing away with all these pending lawsuits. Whether it is or not is a question for the lawyers.

So I know exactly how this conjunction of decisions has come about. It doesn't change the fact that as a (possibly unintended) policy, it feels shitty.

Do you think it unreasonable that they might be helping to cover for a systemic complicitness shared by high ranking Dems during this same time period?

I doubt it. First of all, it's pretty clear the CIA & Bush Administration didn't tell Congress everything (or anything) and lied about the stuff it did share. Second, in such an investigation, you really think Joe Random Democratic Senator is going to come off worse than Woo, Bybee, Addington, et. al.?

Or perhaps they have reluctance based on what they feel they need to do in order to keep the US safe. I know this sounds like rhetoric...but maybe...just maybe...the President actually knows what he's doing. And maybe...that goes for the last one.

Presidents are people too, fallible and all the rest. To assume that they know better than the rest of us is to prefer monarchy.

Having said that, neither Bush nor Obama has, in my mind, made a convincing case for the necessity of rendition or torture, even in the hypothetical for national security that isn't contradicted or dismissed by a myriad of former intelligence operatives with proof to the contrary (see one of the many "torture" or "GITMO" threads in the past for an array of quotes on the subject).


So Obama's letting the CIA continue to have rendition because he doesn't want to challenge the CIA (and, possibly, seem "weak" on national security issues), and Holder's taking the narrowest and simplest route to dealing with a myriad of legal issues bequeathed to him by the Bush Administration.

[sterlingice]

And the cold irony at the end of the day is that if there is another terrorist attack under Obama's watch, it's not going to matter that he tried to thread a needle here. He's still going to be painted and viewed as a weak Democrat who tried to dismantle security even if he walked a fine line, trying to preserve both it and get back some of our moral high ground. The mouth breathers will rule that day and they don't exactly care about nuance.

SI

[Arles]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And the cold irony at the end of the day is that if there is another terrorist attack under Obama's watch, it's not going to matter that he tried to thread a needle here. He's still going to be painted and viewed as a weak Democrat who tried to dismantle security even if he walked a fine line, trying to preserve both it and get back some of our moral high ground. The mouth breathers will rule that day and they don't exactly care about nuance.

SI

This is exactly right. A democrat showing weakness on defense is like a republican showing weakness on corporate corruption. I think Obama is (and very deftly so) aware that anything that his opponents can use to show he's not serious on terror is very damaging to him. Another way to look at it - here are the two scenarios that could come from a heavy investigation:

1. They find a bunch of clear violations and arrests occur. The people that support Obama said "I knew it" and continue to support him. The people that don't blame him for not moving on and tire of it all. Then, god forbid we have another attack, the right comes out bashing Obama saying if he spent more time looking for terrorists and less time looking into prior administrations, we might not have been attacked.

2. They don't find much they can get to stick and the republicans blast him for wasting money/resources in a recession - with democrats blaming his justice dept for being incompetent. Then, if we have an attack, it's even worse than in scenario 1.

If I am president, I want to know a likely desirable outcome before I undertake a massive investigation/witch hunt. And, in this case, I just don't see one.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Presidents are people too, fallible and all the rest. To assume that they know better than the rest of us is to prefer monarchy.

Having said that, neither Bush nor Obama has, in my mind, made a convincing case for the necessity of rendition or torture, even in the hypothetical for national security that isn't contradicted or dismissed by a myriad of former intelligence operatives with proof to the contrary (see one of the many "torture" or "GITMO" threads in the past for an array of quotes on the subject).

So Obama's letting the CIA continue to have rendition because he doesn't want to challenge the CIA (and, possibly, seem "weak" on national security issues), and Holder's taking the narrowest and simplest route to dealing with a myriad of legal issues bequeathed to him by the Bush Administration.

It's not so much knowing better, but knowing more.

National defense is the toughest area for a government to be transparent, to have accountability, and to be expected to tell the truth, and to be able to be understood by the people.

It seems like Obama is learning that. I don't understand how I, or you, people on the outside, without security clearances, without a government intelligence background, and without relationships with foreign governments, can have such firm opinions and be so sure that someone with all of those things is wrong. I get sucked into that trap too, and have opinions on it, but it really is ridiuclous on that level.

There has to be an element of trust there. Some people say they just trust Obama more than Bush, and that's fine. That's a reasonable part of a voting criteria. But when two men like Bush and Obama can do certain things in the national defense arena the SAME, I'm convinced that those things have to be the right things.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

molson, so since national defense has difficulty being transparent, there are no limits to what one can do in the name of national defense? Or just that "we the people" are incapable of defining those limits?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

There has to be an element of trust there. Some people say they just trust Obama more than Bush, and that's fine. That's a reasonable part of a voting criteria. But when two men as different as Bush and Obama can do certain things in the national defense arena the SAME, I'm convinced that those things have to be the right things.

i suppose this is a good point

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Could you make the same point with Johnson and Nixon, though?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by molson

It's not so much knowing better, but knowing more.
...
There has to be an element of trust there. Some people say they just trust Obama more than Bush, and that's fine. That's a reasonable part of a voting criteria. But when two men like Bush and Obama can do certain things in the national defense arena the SAME, I'm convinced that those things have to be the right things.

This is pretty much where I was driving at as well.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Could you make the same point with Johnson and Nixon, though?

Yep. It's a dangerous path you go down when you start there.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Could you make the same point with Johnson and Nixon, though?

When the president does it...it's not illegal!!

[flere-imsaho]

Let's be clear here, unless I'm missing something, the only policy in the national security arena that Obama is going to duplicate from Bush is the practice of rendition. As I've stated before, I've yet to hear a reasonable (even hypothetical) argument from Bush or Obama as to why rendition needs to be kept. I understand the President can't talk specifics. But he should be able to justify such a policy even in the hypothetical.

But let's be honest, we know why he's keeping rendition. There are two possible reasons. The first is that it allows the CIA to keep suspected terrorists in custody without risking exposure to U.S. law. The second is that it allows the CIA to get other countries to torture suspected terrorists so they can extract (likely dubious) intel from them. I find neither justification compelling.

Intel via torture has already been discussed. Some people still think it's useful, despite the evidence, but we've argued that one to death.

To me, the ability to hold people indefinitely via rendition, outside of U.S. law, more than anything simply shows the continuing ineffectiveness of the CIA. Instead of developing human intel on the ground in these countries, the CIA continues to go for the fast, cheap and easy solution of just rounding up anyone who seems suspicious and letting them rot overseas in case they might be a terrorist. Seriously, just look at the record - it's pathetic.


Some people say this is a new war with a new enemy, and the old rules can't apply. Fine. If that's the case, let's make new rules. Let's make new rules that allow us to keep truly suspicious terrorists in custody indefinitely (possibly subject to reviews, also possibly allowed release only on the President's authority). Let's make new rules that keep things secret but allow for briefings at the top Congressional levels (with compulsion for the CIA to tell the truth, and severe penalties for leaks from Congress). But let's stop pussy-footing around the subject and employing extra-legal remedies suitable only for 3rd world tinpot dictators.

Give me a break. Obama should be better than this. If I wanted Bush mk. II (speaking of tinpot dictators) I would have voted for McCain.

[RainMaker]

I just think rendition is a pussy way to skirt the law. If you want torture, then pass a law in the country allowing it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just think rendition is a pussy way to skirt the law. If you want torture, then pass a law in the country allowing it.

While that would certainly be refreshing, then you'd have to deal with all that crap - debates, criticism on torture.

Pretty much every president has decided that national security efforts work best when there's a kind of vague veil over everything. And those presidents actually know about the threats the U.S. faced or continue face.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That's a lot of trust to give the government - why don't you give them the same trust with your wallet?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

That's a lot of trust to give the government - why don't you give them the same trust with your wallet?

We don't really have a choice with national security - it's the only area where things really have to be a secret. It's not a trust I would choose to have, if it were up to me. So maybe trust isn't really the right word - maybe surrender?

[molson]

I'm going to risk an entire torture debate that hopefully won't happen, BUT - one of the little nuggets in the "torture" stories of the last few days that has gotten a lot of play is that a CIA interrogator threatened to kill KSM's kids if there was another attack.

Does anyone have a problem with that (provided the kids aren't actually killed - I think this happened on "24" once)? Would this now be considered torture?

Of course, a "threat" like that only has credibility if KSM thinks we'll do it. So maybe the government actually wants, on some level, for terrorists to think we'll torture. Or maybe we want to be just secretive enough for them to not know what exactly we're capable of.

[SteveMax58]

In regards to KSM's kids...that is precisely where I was going. The perceived possibility is worthwhile to keep the vague laws in tact, IMHO.

I do think that investigating after the fact (or even as a non-legal pursued effort) can be worthwhile if the intention is kept to informing the American people what their government has done in the past so that we can make informed decisions in the future with regards to candidates and platforms.

[JPhillips]

These torture investigations are the worst possible outcome. Now Obama has legitimized the argument that if a President's lawyers say it's legal it is and he's made clear that justice is just for little people. Terribly disappointing.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm going to risk an entire torture debate that hopefully won't happen, BUT - one of the little nuggets in the "torture" stories of the last few days that has gotten a lot of play is that a CIA interrogator threatened to kill KSM's kids if there was another attack.

Does anyone have a problem with that (provided the kids aren't actually killed - I think this happened on "24" once)? Would this now be considered torture?

This kind of illustrates the pointless Jack Bauer-type posturing bullshit upon which the Bush (read: Cheney) torture regime was based. KSM was already in custody, with no access to his network. How is he going to stop additional attacks? If he truly loves his kids, he'll start saying anything, regardless of truth, until he thinks the investigators have started believing him and his kids are safe.

The end result is just more faulty intel and a further slide away from actual effective interrogation techniques.

If we want to send a message to terrorists that we're serious, our focus should not be on what will happen to them when they're captured. Our focus should be on giving them the impression that we're efficient and relentless in our search from them and that they will not escape us.

I'll bet Al-Qaeda operatives fear waterboarding a whole lot less than the fate that befell Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Baitullah Mehsud. It should be noted that the former's death was the result of information gleaned from non-torture interrogation methods and the latter's death was the result of Pakistani human intel gathered on the ground.

Successful attacks/captures like this encourage less-fanatical AQ operatives to seriously consider either a) giving it up or b) giving their intel over to the U.S. or allies to get out of the target zone. The latter option is only enhanced by not practicing torture on our part. This, amongst other reasons, was part of the point no less than General David Petraeus made when saying that torture should have no part in operations in Iraq (before he became CENTCOMM commander).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Does anyone have a problem with that (provided the kids aren't actually killed - I think this happened on "24" once)? Would this now be considered torture?

I don't really have a problem with the morality of torture. In theory, the guys we've been torturing are really horrible people. They can fuck off and die as far as I'm concerned.

The problems I have with torture are twofold: 1) we've demonstrably tortured many innocent people who had no knowledge of anything but provided us with false intel under torture just to get the torturers to stop and 2) (related to 1) it's simply not as effective as other techniques and may in fact be detrimental to our initiatives through the provision of faulty intel and by closing other avenues we may have in the "War on Terror".

It's like my opposition to the death penalty. I don't have a problem putting murderers to death. I have a problem with our flawed justice system slating many innocent people for death. And that's not talking about the efficacy issue with the death penalty (if there is one - I don't have an opinion on it).

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This kind of illustrates the pointless Jack Bauer-type posturing bullshit upon which the Bush (read: Cheney) torture regime was based. KSM was already in custody, with no access to his network. How is he going to stop additional attacks? If he truly loves his kids, he'll start saying anything, regardless of truth, until he thinks the investigators have started believing him and his kids are safe.

KSM could potentially provide intel that would allow the government to stop a future terrorist attack.

Sure, he'll be motivated to "say anything", but there's also a specific outcome here - if he knows something that will help repel a terrorist attack, he'll say it. There's really no point for him to make up false information "regardless of truth" if this threat is believed and put in absolute terms - if there's an attack, your kids are dead. That's it. False information won't save them, maybe the network is moving on without you and there's nothing you can do to save them. But if you want them to have ANY chance, you have to work with us.

Members of the Bush administration were many things, but they weren't stupid. There is a logic to what they did, even if it was kept from us, even if reasonable minds could differ on the benefits. There's this assumption that we know everything about the logic, in every situation, and we just don't. It wasn't as simple as, "tell us something generic about terrorisim or we'll torture you". Just because we don't know the story behind every situation doesn't mean we can assume it was the simplest possible explanation, whatever that is.

[flere-imsaho]

Alternatively, let's use an actual, real world example: Abu Zubaydah. This guy provided actionable intelligence to FBI interrogators using non-harsh interrogation techniques until the CIA got involved and started torturing him.

I'm sorry, but you keep coming back to the oft-discredited Jack Bauer "ticking time bomb" scenario. In the Gitmo thread I posted a long list of former intelligence officers who stated time and again that non-harsh interrogation techniques produced results and torture did not. I mean, even the Israelis don't believe in torture for interrogation....

But somehow we all still want to believe the Cheney/Woo/Bybee/Addington fantasy world that Real Life is just like "24". It isn't. There's clear evidence that it isn't. Why are people still disputing this?

Originally Posted by molson

Members of the Bush administration were many things, but they weren't stupid.

Oh please. Harriet Miers? Scott McClellan? Karen Hughes? Maybe "stupid" is too strong a word, but no administration is staffed with bright lights only. Heck, even Alberto Gonzalez wasn't the sharpest tool in the box.

But no, I wouldn't call Cheney, Woo, Bybee and Addington stupid. I'd call them criminally misguided, stupefyingly arrogant, and dangerously wrong.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

A couple of things.

1. It didn't work. Why do we know it didn't work? Because if it worked, it'd be a new book in the right-wing Bible. It'd be the trump card for every conservative bag of crap on every news show, in every Bush administration self-justification memoir; it'd be tattooed on John Woo's sneering lip and on Alberto Gonzales's ass. Instead, all we get is the assertion that torture worked by the people whose asses' freedom depends on it.

2. Like Flere said, if you threaten to kill a man's kids or to rape his mother in front of him and you believe that he believes you'll do it, you have ceased to represent any ideas that are better or stronger or more moral than the man you are threatening. In other words, is this how things work in a shining city on a hill? Also, since we're bombing his country and killing women and children, he wouldn't doubt that we would in fact, do that.

3. Can we finally call this torture? When is pressing a prisoner's carotid artery until they almost passed out and then doing it again not torture? What about scrubbing someone with an abrasive brush? Is it only torture if it rises to the level of WWRBD (What Would this Random Bastard we have today Do?)

4. What's in those huge redacted sessions? When is that shoe gonna drop?

5. Last, I know a lot those tortured are awful motherfuckers who would gut me in a moment. So?

you're awesome. especially point #2

[JPhillips]

Even if you could prove that waterboarding KSM was beneficial, that doesn't excuse beating a man to death with a flashlight or the literally dozens of other deaths of detainees. The use of torture corrupted our sense of right and wrong and now Holder has essentially said that's okay.

[flere-imsaho]

Correction - by "Woo" I mean "Yoo". My bad. In my defense, it's been a trying few days with the little one so I'm not on 100% sleep.

[JPhillips]

For those who have asked what GOP elected officials can do to tamp down the crazy, John McCain does a pretty good job here:

[flere-imsaho]

Very big kudos to McCain there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Alternatively, let's use an actual, real world example: Abu Zubaydah. This guy provided actionable intelligence to FBI interrogators using non-harsh interrogation techniques until the CIA got involved and started torturing him.

I'm sorry, but you keep coming back to the oft-discredited Jack Bauer "ticking time bomb" scenario. In the Gitmo thread I posted a long list of former intelligence officers who stated time and again that non-harsh interrogation techniques produced results and torture did not. I mean, even the Israelis don't believe in torture for interrogation.....

You misunderstood my post. I wasn't defending torture, I wasn't saying it was beneficial, I was responding to your implication that there is no possible benefit that could be derived from the particular technique that was alleged to be used on KSM.

My greater point being - you don't know. You don't know what happened, and you definitely don't know why anything happened. You're prior complaint, a few posts up, was that you haven't heard any justification for what goes on in interrogation rooms. I'm just saying you won't, ever, even if there's a perfectly reasonable one. That's something that the administration (any administration) is just not going to share with the public in any meaningful way.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

A couple of things.

1. It didn't work. Why do we know it didn't work? Because if it worked, it'd be a new book in the right-wing Bible. It'd be the trump card for every conservative bag of crap on every news show, in every Bush administration self-justification memoir; it'd be tattooed on John Woo's sneering lip and on Alberto Gonzales's ass. Instead, all we get is the assertion that torture worked by the people whose asses' freedom depends on it.

2. Like Flere said, if you threaten to kill a man's kids or to rape his mother in front of him and you believe that he believes you'll do it, you have ceased to represent any ideas that are better or stronger or more moral than the man you are threatening. In other words, is this how things work in a shining city on a hill? Also, since we're bombing his country and killing women and children, he wouldn't doubt that we would in fact, do that.

3. Can we finally call this torture? When is pressing a prisoner's carotid artery until they almost passed out and then doing it again not torture? What about scrubbing someone with an abrasive brush? Is it only torture if it rises to the level of WWRBD (What Would this Random Bastard we have today Do?)

4. What's in those huge redacted sessions? When is that shoe gonna drop?

5. Last, I know a lot those tortured are awful motherfuckers who would gut me in a moment. So?

1. No way. It'd still be a hugely controversial topic and many if not most people would still oppose torture on moral grounds. And those who would support it wouldn't want to hear about it, or hear people publicly bragging about its effects in any major way. Torture will never be paraded as a platform, its just a stretch to contend otherwise. And you're implying that the prior administration KNEW that their techniques didn't work. So why did they use them? I don't buy that Dick Cheney needed snuff films to whack off to.

2. Government doesn't think like this. It's not set up to make symbolically idealistic decisions. I don't think most Americans think this way either. If I personally torture the shit out of KSM or OBL, I'm still better than either of them, because they murdered 3,000+ people, and all I did was torture one or two people that murdered 3,000+ in an effort to save other people. Yup, they're still worse.

3. Is locking someone up against their will torture? I'd rather be scrubbed with an abrasive brush than be locked up the rest of my life. The definition of torture is always going to be a debate, but the meaningful debate won't be public. If someone, under any administration, thinks he can get an edge in a particular task by bending the rules, he'll do it, just like Congresspeople, presidents, anyone else. When the nature of the task is secretive anyway, that just increases that dynamic.

4. I haven't seen that but I've just about gotten high from all of the black markers needed to personally redact stuff at the state level, including shit nobody would remotely care about. There's all kinds of reasons things need to be redacted, it's not necessarily indicative of illegality.

I basically trust the Obama administration to use "harsh" interrogation techniques in a limited manner, where they feel its necessary in a particular case. They know the score, they know what's at stake, better than I do. All we can really do is vote and make our opinion known, but we can't otherwise control how our country wages war, anymore than we can decide which particular Taliban stronghold to attack today.

[Arles]

I'm not a big fan of some of the alleged torture claims I've seen towards the Bush administration, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think it's any kind of a pandemic issue with our intelligence system. If someone broke the law during interrogation and there's proof, I think charges should be filed. But, I think the instances of this would be few and far between.

As to the current administration, I completely trust that Obama isn't going to go over the line in interrogation. And, until I see evidence otherwise, I'm not going to bang on him for not pushing to file charges when there just isn't much evidence pointing to gross negligence when it comes to interrogation (past or present). In this case, I think people need to give Obama a break. I really don't know what practical actions he can take to appease the "hate Bush" crowd on this stuff.

[JPhillips]

2. Government doesn't think like this. It's not set up to make symbolically idealistic decisions. I don't think most Americans think this way either. If I personally torture the shit out of KSM or OBL, I'm still better than either of them, because they murdered 3,000+ people, and all I did was torture one or two people that murdered 3,000+ in an effort to save other people. Yup, they're still worse.

What if that same culture ends up killing dozens of detainees and torturing hundreds more of questionable guilt? Legitimizing torture, not in a rare case, but as a system to be used worldwide, strips us of our morality. You can't limit the discussion to KSM, because this is really about approving torture for hundreds if not thousands of detainees.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Arles

I really don't know what practical actions he can take to appease the "hate Bush" crowd on this stuff.

I don't know if I'm part of the hate Bush crowd (voted for him, but think he was a terrible president) but Obama deciding to discontinue the practice of torture would be sufficient for me.

Maybe I'm a schmuck, but sometimes I actually believe we should strive for the "American Exceptionalism" that is often parroted by those who generally supported the torture policies. Having said that, I find those torture policies to be the antithesis of "American Exceptionalism".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Maybe I'm a schmuck, but sometimes I actually believe we should strive for the "American Exceptionalism" that is often parroted by those who generally supported the torture policies. Having said that, I find those torture policies to be the antithesis of "American Exceptionalism".

Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.

[JPhillips]

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
– George Orwell

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

My greater point being - you don't know. You don't know what happened, and you definitely don't know why anything happened. You're prior complaint, a few posts up, was that you haven't heard any justification for what goes on in interrogation rooms. I'm just saying you won't, ever, even if there's a perfectly reasonable one. That's something that the administration (any administration) is just not going to share with the public in any meaningful way.

I don't buy it. We have a great many former intelligence officers on the record as saying that torture doesn't work. We have on the record evidence from the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah that non-torture interrogation techniques were working and torture interrogations did not work. So we've got plenty of real world, documented reasons from intelligence professionals as to why torture doesn't work, and and very little, if any, verifiable evidence that torture does deliver actionable intel.

I also don't buy that the administration (any administration) isn't going to share success stories. Here's one. Here's another. And another. Note that all three successes resulted from intel gathered through surveillance programs and/or positioning security services to be open and friendly towards people willing to offer key intel on the plots.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Quote wars on a message board are worthless.
-Mizzou B-ball Fan

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Quote wars on a message board are worthless.
-Mizzou B-ball Fan

I like pie
-SterlingIce

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't buy it. We have a great many former intelligence officers on the record as saying that torture doesn't work. We have on the record evidence from the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah that non-torture interrogation techniques were working and torture interrogations did not work. So we've got plenty of real world, documented reasons from intelligence professionals as to why torture doesn't work, and and very little, if any, verifiable evidence that torture does deliver actionable intel.

I also don't buy that the administration (any administration) isn't going to share success stories. Here's one. Here's another. And another. Note that all three successes resulted from intel gathered through surveillance programs and/or positioning security services to be open and friendly towards people willing to offer key intel on the plots.

So why then, do you think Obama's OK with rendition? He wants people to be tortured? It is conceivable that there's more to it than you understand, or are you 100% sure you know why the government does anything in the area of national security?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I like pie
-SterlingIce

I admit it. I busted out laughing.
-Mizzou B-ball Fan

[JPhillips]

Shorter GOP: Providing health insurance to the uninsured is Maoism, but trusting the government to detain and torture the right people the right way is patriotism.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Shorter GOP: Providing health insurance to the uninsured is Maoism, but trusting the government to detain and torture the right people the right way is patriotism.

Apples and Oranges (and most people with concerns about Obama's particular plan in this thread have no problem with helping the uninsured - not that that particular strawman isn't getting tiring or anything).

Trust isn't the issue, as I've tried to explain.

So you admit that Obama gets off on torture and you can't trust him? Why else would Obama be OK with rendition (by your logic), despite all the evidence that torture doesn't work, unless he just personally loves the power associated with it, like we heard about the Bush administration for years?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

And you're implying that the prior administration KNEW that their techniques didn't work. So why did they use them? I don't buy that Dick Cheney needed snuff films to whack off to.

How about the obvious answer: Cheney was wrong about torture. It wouldn't have been the first time. As Chief of Staff to Ford, he was unprepared for the fall of Saigon. He was wrong about Iraq and WMD. He was wrong about connections between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. He was wrong (repeatedly) about the length of the insurgency in Iraq. He was wrong about the troop levels needed in Iraq to provide security.

Is it so hard to believe that he and his acolytes were wrong about the efficacy of torture? Is it so hard to believe that their arrogance on this matter (and others, frankly) kept them from understanding what the truth of the situation was?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Apples and Oranges.

Trust isn't the issue, as I've tried to explain.

So you admit that Obama gets off on torture and you can't trust him?

It's just interesting what people see as tyranny.

I don't think Obama gets off on torture nor do I think Cheney does, that's beside the point. The problem is that a legitimizing of torture, not just in extreme cases, but as a matter of routine leads inevitably to a weakening of our morals. You can make an argument that waterboarding KSM isn't that bad,(although to be clear I'm still opposed to that) but how do you excuse the rampant use of torture by the CIA and every branch of the military? What Bush/Cheney created has now been legitimized by Obama. Now that both parties have their hands in this, when will we stop torturing?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

So why then, do you think Obama's OK with rendition? He wants people to be tortured? It is conceivable that there's more to it than you understand, or are you 100% sure you know why the government does anything in the area of national security?

From the previous page....

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But let's be honest, we know why he's keeping rendition. There are two possible reasons. The first is that it allows the CIA to keep suspected terrorists in custody without risking exposure to U.S. law. The second is that it allows the CIA to get other countries to torture suspected terrorists so they can extract (likely dubious) intel from them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can make an argument that waterboarding KSM isn't that bad,(although to be clear I'm still opposed to that) but how do you excuse the rampant use of torture by the CIA and every branch of the military?

I don't. It's clearly not the best way to go. I don't know why you keep thinking I'm a torture monger.

All I'm really doing is pointing out Obama's phoniness and campaign deceit (and in some, limited cases, the hillarity of the blind followers who could care less), and make the point that torture is a real grey area and not something where there can be any meaningful public debate, like there can be with health care. The nature of torture is that its "bad", "illegal". Obama can come out tomorrow with a blanket statement forbidding it in all forms, but its still going to happen.

Maybe the Bush administration was actually the most transparent administration we ever had on this issue, where there was actually accountability to the top. Do you think we never used "harsh interrogation techniques" in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc? That doesn't make it right to do it now, but I imagine in the old days, such details were kept from the top level people. That's where interogation lurked, in the background and in the shadows. The Bush administration actually tried to bring the whole thing to the forefront, create some kind of universal policy, even if it wasn't a good one. And now people act like they invented harsh interogation, just because they're the first ones to talk about it openly, and involve top people in decision-making.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't. It's clearly not the best way to go. I don't know why you keep thinking I'm a torture monger.

All I'm really doing is pointing out Obama's phoniness and campaign deceit (and in some, limited cases, the hillarity of the blind followers who could care less), and make the point that torture is a real grey area and not something where there can be any meaningful public debate, like there can be with health care. The nature of torture is that its "bad", "illegal". Obama can come out tomorrow with a blanket statement forbidding it in all forms, but its still going to happen.

Maybe the Bush administration was actually the most transparent administration we ever had on this issue, where there was actually accountability to the top. Do you think we never used "harsh interrogation techniques" in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc? That doesn't make it right to do it now, but I imagine in the old days, such details were kept from the top level people. That's where interogation lurked, in the background and in the shadows. The Bush administration actually tried to bring the whole thing to the forefront, create some kind of universal policy, even if it wasn't a good one. And now people act like they invented harsh interogation, just because they're the first ones to talk about it openly, and involve top people in decision-making.

Saying we should just trust the people who instituted a system of torture is de facto supporting the torture. You can't be against torture and for a system of torture.

And we most certainly did not see widespread, legalized torture during any other time in our nation's history. There have always been incidents on the battlefield, but there has never been a system legalizing torture for the CIA and all branches of the military. That's the critical difference. We went from having rare cases of torture that had the threat of prosecution attached to them to a system where torture was determined to be legal and was encouraged by our highest civilian and military leaders. There is no comparaison to any other time in our nation's history.