"... and it was pretty fun. You should try it."
For context: the President spoke about how the CIA, under George W Bush, went too far in its post-9/11 interrogations, and said that it "did some things that were contrary to our values." As an example, "we tortured some folks."
Are you objecting to the word "folks", because it makes it sound casual? He's admitting that the US tortured people, and that it was something we should never do. I think in context, this is just the way he talks; he doesn't seem to be belittling the concept of torture.
It was terrible, but worth it for that emoticon.
Well, being honest is the first step to admitting your mistakes. It's something, after a decade of nothing, I guess.
"We tortured some folks," the president said."
No 'we' didn't George Bush et al did. That was their crime.
Obama's separate crime was 'after the fact' in not criminally prosecuting them. So an accurate statement would be "they tortured some folks" and "I pardoned the torturers. I let the torturers get away because even though I had the responsibility, authority and ability to have them prosecuted for their crimes. I let them go for 'political reasons"
Analogies would be they murdered and I drove the getaway car.
They robbed the bank and I drove the getaway car.
They are criminals, I am the District Attorney. I didn't prosecute them even though they were clearly guilty. I am Gerald Ford, they are Richard Nixon. I am continuing the destructive habit of not prosecuting the guilty powerful because no powerful people will be held accountable for their crimes.
Obama's guilty, and in one respect, his guilt is more severe because by not prosecuting he tells future torturers they needn't worry. There is no deterrent.
If there is no prosecution, there is no real guilt and there is no true 'rule of law.'
Law is for the little people is the message and the message is heard.
Gaaaa. Not that this is much of a surprise, but this sort of thing still bothers me. Over the last 14 years, this country has done a large number of things that I would have though of as "impossible" if you had asked me 25 years go. America is supposed to be the "good guys." Good guys do not act like this.
Good guys don't torture people. They don't spy on everybody. They don't send the IRS after enemies. They don't make a habit of lying to the public.
What we really need is a good libertarian president. Democrats suck. Republicans suck -- they suck a little less, but they still suck. What we really need is a president that, when he swears to uphold the constitution, he actually means it. Unfortunately, I know how likely that is.
That's what Hollywood's been telling you for generations.
While demeaning and disgusting at least the president admitted guilt.
The US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture (text at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html ). If the president acknowledges that "we tortured some folks", it would appear that he is obliged to prosecute the alleged offenders.
No, just . . . no. What we really need is a good Green president.
Why start the clock 14 years ago? Are the administrations of Bush 43 and Obama really any different to those that went before? When was Iran-Contra? When was the Bay of Pigs? Has US foreign policy ever really been different?
Maybe you are right. Maybe I only started noticing when "W" took charge. I didn't like Clinton much, but his only scandal involved screwing one girl. Bush and Obama have screwed over 300 million.
Can I assume that Obama's next sentence was, "And right now Interpol is serving arrest warrants"?
No? Oh, we're supposed to "move on" and not "litigate the past" for "the good of the country". Oh okay.
Maybe he did that thing where people adopt the patois or tendencies of who they are discussing or discussing with? "Folks" is definitely a word that brings Bush & Bushisms to mind.
Although Fordeux in Toronto probably now spring to mind upon hearing "folks", these days.
My favorite example of a crazy-ass bloodthirsty psycho in the White House is Andrew Jackson. When the Supreme Court told him to knock it off with the illegal genocidey stuff against Native Americans he basically just said "make me!" and did it anyway.
Our recent Presidents haven't been saints by a long shot, but they were puppydogs compared to some of their predecessors.
And yet, there's an even larger context, with the government spying on itself investigating torture it committed (I know)
I always have to ask this, but who benefits from this confession?
Seems to me, this could be a way of sort of validating the need for actually spying on anybody, and for breaking the law, because now "We can admit this"
Granted, its a tin hat sort of idea, but I've sort of made up my mind to not take it off for a while.
If public opinion continues to be "negative" he might just admit that extra judicial murder is wrong too.
next page →