Obama shields torturers permanently

[Thanas]

Link

Torture crimes officially, permanently shielded

In August, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder -- under continuous, aggressive prodding by the Obama White House -- announced that three categories of individuals responsible for Bush-era torture crimes would be fully immunized from any form of criminal investigation and prosecution: (1) Bush officials who ordered the torture (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld); (2) Bush lawyers who legally approved it (Yoo, Bybee, Levin), and (3) those in the CIA and the military who tortured within the confines of the permission slips they were given by those officials and lawyers (i.e., "good-faith" torturers). The one exception to this sweeping immunity was that low-level CIA agents and servicemembers who went so far beyond the torture permission slips as to basically commit brutal, unauthorized murder would be subject to a "preliminary review" to determine if a full investigation was warranted -- in other words, the Abu Ghraib model of justice was being applied, where only low-ranking scapegoats would be subject to possible punishment while high-level officials would be protected.

Yesterday, it was announced that this "preliminary review" by the prosecutor assigned to conduct it, U.S. Attorney John Durham, is now complete, and -- exactly as one would expect -- even this category of criminals has been almost entirely protected, meaning a total legal whitewash for the Bush torture regime:

The Justice Department has opened full criminal investigations of the deaths in CIA custody of two detainees, including one who perished at Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. officials said Thursday.

The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., means continued legal jeopardy for several CIA operatives but at the same time closes the book on inquiries that potentially threatened many others. A federal prosecutor reviewed 101 cases in which agency officers and contractors interrogated suspected terrorists during years of military action after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but found cause to pursue criminal cases in only two. . . .

The two token cases to be investigated involve the most grotesque brutality imaginable: they apparently are (1) a detainee who froze to death in an American secret prison in Afghanistan in 2002 after being ordered stripped and chained to a concrete floor, and (2) the 2003 death of a detainee at Abu Ghraib whose body was infamously photographed by guards giving a thumbs-up sign. All other crimes in the Bush torture era will be fully protected. Lest there be any doubt about what a profound victory this is for those responsible for the torture regime, consider the reaction of the CIA:

"On this, my last day as director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us," said a statement from CIA Director Leon Panetta, who will take over as defense secretary on Friday. "We are now finally about to close this chapter of our agency's history" . . . . At CIA headquarters on Thursday, Holder’s announcement was greeted with relief. . . .

Consider what's being permanently shielded from legal accountability. The Bush torture regime extended to numerous prisons around the world, in which tens of thousands of mostly Muslim men were indefinitely imprisoned without a whiff of due process, and included a network of secret prisons -- "black sites" -- purposely placed beyond the monitoring reach of even international human rights groups, such as the International Red Cross.

Over 100 detainees died during U.S. interrogations, dozens due directly to interrogation abuse. Gen. Barry McCaffrey said: "We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces and the C.I.A." Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the official investigation into detainee abuse, wrote: "there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Thanks to the Obama DOJ, that is no longer in question. The answer is resoundingly clear: American war criminals, responsible for some of the most shameful and inexcusable crimes in the nation's history -- the systematic, deliberate legalization of a worldwide torture regime -- will be fully immunized for those crimes. And, of course, the Obama administration has spent years just as aggressively shielding those war criminals from all other forms of accountability beyond the criminal realm: invoking secrecy and immunity doctrines to prevent their victims from imposing civil liability, exploiting their party's control of Congress to suppress formal inquiries, and pressuring and coercing other nations not to investigate their own citizens' torture at American hands.

All of those efforts, culminating in yesterday's entirely unsurprising announcement, means that the U.S. Government has effectively shielded itself from even minimal accountability for its vast torture crimes of the last decade. Without a doubt, that will be one of the most significant, enduring and consequential legacies of the Obama presidency.

So: More than 100 detainees died. The investigating officers, both Generals, are on record saying there is no doubt warcrimes and other illegal activities have been performed. And everybody will get off scot free.

Obama, you are now complicit in torture and war crimes. Not that this will stop any of his supporters from voting for him. By and large, the American public, by condoning this behavior, is now complicit in this unless popular anger forces the administration to desist from this course.




In other news, Bradley Manning has still not been allowed to be interviewed by the UN despite spending months. Oh, and there is still no trial date for him either. Outrage caused by this treatment of a citizen? 0.

[Lord MJ]

It can mean one of two things, either Obama wants to continue the Bush torture policies, or that he can not afford to be distracted with prosecuting torture cases.

If the latter, it could be the result of Obama's lack of political capital. Had Obama knocked it out of the park in regards to recovery and reform, and if he was riding a wave of popularity right now, then yeah he could focus on dealing with torture suspects as part of his "CHANGE" package. But he is not riding a wave of popularity, and he has a hostile congress. Not the environment to take such contentious actions.

[Mr Bean]

It can mean one of two things, either Obama wants to continue the Bush torture policies, or that he can not afford to be distracted with prosecuting torture cases.

If the latter, it could be the result of Obama's lack of political capital. Had Obama knocked it out of the park in regards to recovery and reform, and if he was riding a wave of popularity right now, then yeah he could focus on dealing with torture suspects as part of his "CHANGE" package. But he is not riding a wave of popularity, and he has a hostile congress. Not the environment to take such contentious actions.

Both reasons are horrible case studies on Obama's character, either he supports torture directly or he's willing to support torture by letting those who did torture operate without punishment or censor.
For those more familiar with US Case law than I, are these criminals still able to be changed under a new administration?

[Simon_Jester]

Bloody well ought to be- this isn't a presidential pardon, it's a Justice Department policy. I would think the policy could be reversed readily enough.

That said, the US is rapidly sliding into a period of political and economic turmoil, with a ferocious partisan divide over things like "it is good not to default on the national debt." The House of Representatives is hostile to Obama and packed with fringe clowns, the Senate is not reliably capable of getting anything done without Republican consent because of the sheer fucked-ness of it all.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that the US political system simply does not have the time, the political capital, the freedom to pick and choose its priorities that would make a round of prosecutions of ranking state officials for torture feasible. But even that isn't to the credit of anyone involved. At the very best, it's a concession by Obama that he no longer has the strength to fight Republicans on symbolic issues, if he ever did, even when the symbol in question is one where he holds the moral high ground.

And, I repeat, that is the most charitable thing I can say, not a firm assertion of the truth on my part.

[Connor MacLeod]

Frankly isn't this more a testament to how fucked up American politics and culture is, if shit like this is not only allowed to happen but probably considered necessary and proper? I can't exactly accept the idea that this is nothing but Obama's doing, as if he's unilateral American Emperor and the only factor involved here.

[Thanas]

If stuff like this would happen in any other country, the US media would be all over it and the US populace would think "this will never happen here". I also cannot cut Obama any slack on this because after all, nobody knows under which political pressure other torturers are. That still does not make you morally superior nor is it a valid excuse.

Bloody well ought to be- this isn't a presidential pardon, it's a Justice Department policy. I would think the policy could be reversed readily enough.

I am willing to bet you 1000$ right now that none of the groups identified in the article will ever face punishment for this. None of the planners and laywers who did this will ever be punished, nor will any CIA officer except for maybe two or three low-ranking scapegoats who will get a slap on the wrist.

[Simon_Jester]

Bloody well ought to be- this isn't a presidential pardon, it's a Justice Department policy. I would think the policy could be reversed readily enough.

I am willing to bet you 1000$ right now that none of the groups identified in the article will ever face punishment for this. None of the planners and laywers who did this will ever be punished, nor will any CIA officer except for maybe two or three low-ranking scapegoats who will get a slap on the wrist.

No takers. I don't have the money to spare, and frankly, at even odds I wouldn't take the bet even if I did. I said "ought to be" and "could be" for a reason- it would depend on political will and the American body politic is too dangerously ill for the foreseeable future for that willpower to appear.

I still hold out a little hope for fifteen or twenty years from now, but by that time the whole issue may have faded off the radar to the point where, as you say, no punishment ever happens.

Frankly isn't this more a testament to how fucked up American politics and culture is, if shit like this is not only allowed to happen but probably considered necessary and proper? I can't exactly accept the idea that this is nothing but Obama's doing, as if he's unilateral American Emperor and the only factor involved here.

It's a mix.

Obama has the power to simply decide not to pressure the Department of Justice, and have them be free to decide whether to prosecute or not. No one could stop him from leaving the DoJ alone to make up their own minds. The fact that he stopped them on purpose does make him personally responsible for the choice not to prosecute, with all that that implies.

On the other hand, the fucked-up state of the politics and culture, along with the recession, are contributing to the problem in a big way. Obama's hands are not free, he's got to be feeling tremendous pressure from banging his head against a wall when dealing with the House Republicans (for about six months now). For at least a month he's been staring down the barrel of the debt ceiling crisis, and this is now in full pitch of urgency to the point where it's basically his duty to spend every damn moment of his time trying to do something about it- it's the most important problem on the US government's mind, especially for the executive branch which will have to deal with most of the fallout if no agreement is reached.

About the only things he could reasonably allow to distract him from dealing with the debt ceiling right now would be the imminent outbreak of World War III, or a huge natural disaster on the scale of Katrina or larger. Because the problem is by God that bad.

This does not relieve Obama of responsibility for his actions, and he's been pushing the whole non-prosecution thing for a long time. But it does create the context in which he decides what to do. He is not a free agent, the 'cheap' political capital he gained by running as the anti-Bush in 2008 has evaporated, and everything he's done has turned out to be a much harder fight than progressives expected.

I repeat, this doesn't relieve Obama of responsibility. Bluntly, it's a matter of the facts of life- politics being the art of the possible. Zealous prosecution of Bush administration torturers is not possible at this particular moment, not in the US as we know it. It might have been possible in 2009, but it isn't now.

I don't like it, I don't approve, I wish Obama had charted a different political tack that would have either accomplished more before his political capital ran out or potentially allowed it to be renewed by giving him more accomplishments to point to. But there it is.

[Thanas]

]No takers. I don't have the money to spare, and frankly, at even odds I wouldn't take the bet even if I did. I said "ought to be" and "could be" for a reason- it would depend on political will and the American body politic is too dangerously ill for the foreseeable future for that willpower to appear.

Name any number then.

I still hold out a little hope for fifteen or twenty years from now, but by that time the whole issue may have faded off the radar to the point where, as you say, no punishment ever happens.

How many of the South American CIA torturers were ever punshed, or how many of those who committed torture in Vietnam?

This does not relieve Obama of responsibility for his actions, and he's been pushing the whole non-prosecution thing for a long time. But it does create the context in which he decides what to do. He is not a free agent, the 'cheap' political capital he gained by running as the anti-Bush in 2008 has evaporated, and everything he's done has turned out to be a much harder fight than progressives expected.

I repeat, this doesn't relieve Obama of responsibility. Bluntly, it's a matter of the facts of life- politics being the art of the possible. Zealous prosecution of Bush administration torturers is not possible at this particular moment, not in the US as we know it. It might have been possible in 2009, but it isn't now.

Bull. He never had any interest in going after any war criminal. His rhetoric has always been "move on, don't look back". And it is disgusting and cowardly and shows a callous disregard for human rights not commonly seen outside of that of third world dictators.

Even more, it is not all the Republican's fault. Democrats who tried to clean up this mess have been sidelined by the administration and leadership. By all indications, Obama personally is enabling torture.

In fact, if the reports out of Yemen are true, then Obama has established a new secret prison right there.

[Connor MacLeod]

I am perfectly willing to admit Obama shares blame for what is happening, but I see it as being more a symptom than a primary cause, and focusing on "Obama did this" ignores the larger issue that ALLOWS shit like this to happen, or the retarded bank bailouts, or why decent health care is "socialist", or all the shit the LGBT community has to put up with just to have the hope of being treated like normal people in America. The system is broken, we refuse to admit it is broken, and there isn't enough will or ability to try to convince people otherwise.

And I agree, noone will face punishment, because that would rquire admitting America committed atrocities, and America refuses to believe America is capable of that shit. Freedom and deomcracy, after all.

[Thanas]

Prisoners are either prisoners of war or people that have been charged with something. That may be it.

[Connor MacLeod]

Prisoners are either prisoners of war or people that have been charged with something. That may be it.

Yeah. 'detainee' makes me think like these people are being held after school for some minor infraction or something. I suspect they use the term because it's more polite and less likely to cause an uproar than prisoner. Kind of like how you use more santiized terms for atrocities and assasinations (which are things the US clearly doesn't do!)

[Thanas]

And prisoner also carries legal connotations, which is bad if you want people to have no rights at all.

[K. A. Pital]

How many of the South American CIA torturers were ever punshed, or how many of those who committed torture in Vietnam?

Not sure any were. Then again, neither British nor French colonial torturers faced any punishment either. America is not exactly leading the way here.

In fact, if the reports out of Yemen are true, then Obama has established a new secret prison right there.

Link? Any data on that would be rather illuminating to read.

[Thanas]

My mistake - it was in Mogadishu. the nation. Secret prison, rendition and torture, established under Obama.

As part of its expanding counterterrorism program in Somalia, the CIA also uses a secret prison buried in the basement of Somalia’s National Security Agency (NSA) headquarters, where prisoners suspected of being Shabab members or of having links to the group are held. Some of the prisoners have been snatched off the streets of Kenya and rendered by plane to Mogadishu. While the underground prison is officially run by the Somali NSA, US intelligence personnel pay the salaries of intelligence agents and also directly interrogate prisoners. The existence of both facilities and the CIA role was uncovered by The Nation during an extensive on-the-ground investigation in Mogadishu. Among the sources who provided information for this story are senior Somali intelligence officials; senior members of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG); former prisoners held at the underground prison; and several well-connected Somali analysts and militia leaders, some of whom have worked with US agents, including those from the CIA. A US official, who confirmed the existence of both sites, told The Nation, “It makes complete sense to have a strong counterterrorism partnership” with the Somali government.

[...]

According to former detainees, the underground prison, which is staffed by Somali guards, consists of a long corridor lined with filthy small cells infested with bedbugs and mosquitoes. One said that when he arrived in February, he saw two white men wearing military boots, combat trousers, gray tucked-in shirts and black sunglasses. The former prisoners described the cells as windowless and the air thick, moist and disgusting. Prisoners, they said, are not allowed outside. Many have developed rashes and scratch themselves incessantly. Some have been detained for a year or more. According to one former prisoner, inmates who had been there for long periods would pace around constantly, while others leaned against walls rocking.

[K. A. Pital]

My mistake - it was in Mogadishu. the nation. Secret prison, rendition and torture, established under Obama.

What the fuck. Well, Obama gets another minus on my scorelist (he got a lot of them since he got elected). On the other hand, Obama is just continuing the same policies as used by most American presidents after World War II - CIA torture is old as hell. Torturers did not need shielding before simply because it never even came to prosecution.

[Thanas]

Edited my post with a bit more info.


This is far from not cleaning up. This is directly using the same tactics and methods.

[Simon_Jester]

And I agree, noone will face punishment, because that would rquire admitting America committed atrocities, and America refuses to believe America is capable of that shit. Freedom and deomcracy, after all.

It takes a lot to get a nation to look at the crimes of a previous regime honestly, especially when the crimes are violent and committed against a designated enemy of the state.

Most of the examples I can think of off the top of my head involve either the violent overthrow of the previous government (not a peaceful transfer of power), or losing a war and having the old regime replaced by a completely different new one.

No takers. I don't have the money to spare, and frankly, at even odds I wouldn't take the bet even if I did. I said "ought to be" and "could be" for a reason- it would depend on political will and the American body politic is too dangerously ill for the foreseeable future for that willpower to appear.

Name any number then.

I repeat, at even odds I wouldn't take the bet, even if I had the money. "Even" means a 50% chance of prosecution and a 50% chance of no prosecution, you see. For reasons you know as well as I do, I don't really think the chances of torture prosecutions over the Bush administration are 50% or better.

At odds in my favor I might take the bet, but I am in no way qualified to be a bookie, certainly not on the American political system. I don't know what the odds are. They are nowhere near as close to even as I'd like. They are bad. They are not, in my opinion, zero. But there's a difference between "the odds of this happening are nonzero" and "it's going to happen."

I still hold out a little hope for fifteen or twenty years from now, but by that time the whole issue may have faded off the radar to the point where, as you say, no punishment ever happens.

How many of the South American CIA torturers were ever punshed, or how many of those who committed torture in Vietnam?

"...but by that time the whole issue may have faded off the radar to the point where, as you say, no punishment ever happens."

I came right out and said it, Thanas. The only difference is that I'm not quite as totally certain as you that the US will never clean house on this issue.

I do not really expect it.

I do not really expect systematic torture investigations, or criminal charges that are appropriate, given the large scale of the crimes committed. I do not really expect it, I do not predict it. I expect the matter to get lost in the whirlwind of crises and emergencies that will continue to batter the US for years to come. By the time the smoke clears from that, the issue will probably be dead and buried.

It is physically possible for it to happen. It could be done without violating any fundamental laws of nature- under another administration that gave a damn, in a less toxic political atmosphere. I still hold out a little hope because I would like to think that my country isn't just permanently doomed to an endless cycle of stupidity followed by atrocity followed by stupidity.

But, I repeat, I don't really expect it.

Do I make myself clear?

This does not relieve Obama of responsibility for his actions, and he's been pushing the whole non-prosecution thing for a long time. But it does create the context in which he decides what to do. He is not a free agent, the 'cheap' political capital he gained by running as the anti-Bush in 2008 has evaporated, and everything he's done has turned out to be a much harder fight than progressives expected.

I repeat, this doesn't relieve Obama of responsibility. Bluntly, it's a matter of the facts of life- politics being the art of the possible. Zealous prosecution of Bush administration torturers is not possible at this particular moment, not in the US as we know it. It might have been possible in 2009, but it isn't now.

Bull. He never had any interest in going after any war criminal. His rhetoric has always been "move on, don't look back". And it is disgusting and cowardly and shows a callous disregard for human rights not commonly seen outside of that of third world dictators.

Even more, it is not all the Republican's fault. Democrats who tried to clean up this mess have been sidelined by the administration and leadership. By all indications, Obama personally is enabling torture.

In fact, if the reports out of Yemen are true, then Obama has established a new secret prison right there.

Yes.

The problem is that even if Obama were replaced by a better man, by the man you'd like him to be, right now he would be in a horrible position to do anything about torture prosecutions. The current debt crisis and failure to put together a working budget is an imminent disaster that threatens to plunge the US into a depression. And it is probably not the last such disaster we'll face between now and Election Day 2012, let alone 2016.

I would like the US to go back over the Bush years, repudiate torture and punish torturers, including high-ranking officials who ordered it. I would like that very much. I am tremendously disappointed in Obama over it.*

Just as much as I would like that, I would like the US political situation to be stable and sane enough that such repudiation and punishment could happen- I would like for us not to be on the edge of a total breakdown of government. Which we are.

The threat of budget breakdown is a symptom of the dysfunctional environment Connor has been talking about, of a system that is no longer willing and able to move forward on any issue except those pushed by right-wing extremists. This is a huge problem for America right now. It has been since before Obama took office. Obama, the empty suit who de facto continues most of the Bush-era policies and presents that as 'center-left,' is a symptom of the problem too.

But with the best will in the world and the best person I can think of in the White House, we would still be in a horrible position to think about torture prosecutions for Bush-era offenders (or Obama-era offenders). Changing that reality would require, at a bare minimum, changing the outcome of the 2010 elections. Which is why I agree with Connor- the real problem that creates this disgusting logjam on torture prosecutions is deep rooted. It's bigger than Obama even though he's a large part of it, and it's going to be very hard to resolve.
______________

*I am going to be voting against Obama in the primaries; I would vote against him in the general election if I can find a candidate worth having and am not terrified of the consequences of Obama losing.

I'm half tempted to put in a write-in-vote for the president I think America deserves, but said candidate is disqualified by reason of age. I'm about one third tempted to write in "Daffy Duck" on the ballot or some such nonsense as a protest, but I try to keep my sense of humor out of my decisions in the voting booth.

[Stravo]

Obama is above all a pragmatist. He figures that the absolute shit storm from the right, and probably from a large portion of Americans, that would be created by actually prosecuting or attempting to prosecute especially higher ups like Bush, Cheney and Rice would not be worth the time and would most likely sink any chance he has at getting re-elected or having any of his agenda pass. Add to that the veritable shrug these allegations of torture have gotten from a large segment of the population (kinda hard to paint these detainees in a sympathetic light when many of them look no different than the ones who flew planes into towers on 9/11) and there is no real political will to do something about this. And don't underestimate not wanting to tarnish the country or his own party as a whole with a "Real" investigation or god forbid prosecution. No one is going to come out clean on this one because I think we can all guess that GWB was not doing his torture thing without at least the tacit approval from others in the government including the Dems. Everyone is guilty on some level and no one wants to open that can of worms.

Most politics is about gain. Whether its personal gain, gain for your constituents or gain for your country as a whole (the sweet spot) there is no gain for him or any other politician to pursue this especially when no one is really clammoring for it, sad to say.

[Thanas]

^Stravo, that sounds once more like the old "the country is not ready for it" excuse. Fine, but nobody is forcing him to open new secret rendition sites. Yet he does. Clearly, Obama is finding these things useful and worthwhile continuing.

[Stravo]

^Stravo, that sounds once more like the old "the country is not ready for it" excuse. Fine, but nobody is forcing him to open new secret rendition sites. Yet he does. Clearly, Obama is finding these things useful and worthwhile continuing.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this decision. I just suspect this is what is at play in making it and only continues to confirm what I've already decided about this president. There is no Change. It's like that old Soviet joke - meet the new boss, same as old boss.

Obama has failed for me on so many levels, leadership, political courage, vision, you name it, he falls short on it.

And it's not so much that the country is not ready for it as much as the more starker, the country doesn't want it. It is very clear that most people don't give a shit if we tortured some brown people who may or may not be terrorists. Again, sad but true.

[The Romulan Republic]

Obama, you are now complicit in torture and war crimes. Not that this will stop any of his supporters from voting for him.

Their thinking probably goes a lot like this:

"He may not be perfect, but he's better than a Teabagger." Make of that what you will.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Obama is above all a pragmatist.

No. What he is is George W. Bush in blackface.

He figures that the absolute shit storm from the right, and probably from a large portion of Americans, that would be created by actually prosecuting or attempting to prosecute especially higher ups like Bush, Cheney and Rice would not be worth the time and would most likely sink any chance he has at getting re-elected or having any of his agenda pass.

It is more likely that, since he's still doing everything that George the Lesser has done; putting Shrub and Dick Cheney, Dark Lord of the Sith on trial will only reveal that in a way that the inept morons who run the American mainstream media simply cannot ignore. Which is why they all ought to be tried in the Hague. Dubya, Darth Cheney, and Dubya in Blackface. Only they'll all be long dead before America's military might ever decays enough where American officials will ever have to worry about facing trial in an international court of law.

Add to that the veritable shrug these allegations of torture have gotten from a large segment of the population (kinda hard to paint these detainees in a sympathetic light when many of them look no different than the ones who flew planes into towers on 9/11) and there is no real political will to do something about this.

Ahh, the "average American is an asshole" defense.

Most politics is about gain. Whether its personal gain, gain for your constituents or gain for your country as a whole (the sweet spot) there is no gain for him or any other politician to pursue this especially when no one is really clammoring for it, sad to say.

Here's some gain for the country . . . not providing more propaganda for those who would say "See, the Great Satan is all about fucking over brown people! You should take up suicide vest for our cause! ALLAHUACKBAR!" Or a point of national pride in not living in a nation that has managed to exceed the very worst excesses of 19th century colonialism.

Their thinking probably goes a lot like this:

"He may not be perfect, but he's better than a Teabagger." Make of that what you will.

In some ways he's worse. At least the Teabagger is honest and up-front about being a complete douchebag.

[The Romulan Republic]

In some ways he's worse. At least the Teabagger is honest and up-front about being a complete douchebag.

With all due respect, I question the sanity of anyone who thinks Obama is worse than the typical Teabagger. This does not excuse all his decisions, of course, but worse than the Teabaggers? Bullshit. If the last few weeks' events haven't convinced you of that, well, I'm not sure what will.

I honestly don't know if I can justify voting for him again, but when I see the alternatives, I don't see how I could justify not doing so. Better a weak and slightly corrupt President than a raving lunatic President.

[Serafina]

IN SOME WAYS he IS worse. Not in ever respect.
And a wolf in sheep's clothing IS worse than just a plain wolf. And in regards to torture-policies, Obama is no better than the tea-baggers in any way, shape or form.

Also: Remember, this is the man who got the peace Nobel prize... I wish it should be revoked - or at least the committee should issue a statement "we are sorry that we wrongly gave that prize to an evil torturer".

[Simon_Jester]

IN SOME WAYS he IS worse. Not in ever respect.
And a wolf in sheep's clothing IS worse than just a plain wolf. And in regards to torture-policies, Obama is no better than the tea-baggers in any way, shape or form.

Don't bet on it. So far the Tea Party has been able to avoid a firm opinion on the issue, but I suspect you'd be horribly surprised to learn what they consider acceptable. The linchpin of the American far right emerges from the idea that, in essence, only "good people" have any rights or interests. If you are not on their list of good people, you deserve nothing and they have a right to not be inconvenienced in the slightest by your existence.

I would far rather take a relatively toothless wolf dressed as a sheep than a giant rabid slavering werewolf- and once domestic policy is taken into account, this is the choice I face when picking between, say, Obama and Michelle Bachmann.

Also: Remember, this is the man who got the peace Nobel prize... I wish it should be revoked - or at least the committee should issue a statement "we are sorry that we wrongly gave that prize to an evil torturer".

Agreed- though he is far from the only man whose prize should be revoked in light of later events.

Obama, you are now complicit in torture and war crimes. Not that this will stop any of his supporters from voting for him.

Their thinking probably goes a lot like this:

"He may not be perfect, but he's better than a Teabagger." Make of that what you will.

A Tea Party Republican, given the same options as Obama, would probably have taken the atrocities of the war on terror and amplified them.

Not being satisfied with that, I'd expect such a president to pile on huge human costs in the United States itself with domestic policies that would lead to surplus mortality far greater than the deaths in American torture facilities abroad.

Imagine trying to prosecute a ship's purser for corruption... in the middle of the ocean, during a hurricane. Yes, the crime should be punished, should certainly be punished. Trying to do it while the ship is in danger of sinking outright is madness, especially if it demands the attention of the ship's officers when they are urgently needed at the helm.

That's the problem with pushing the issue of Bush (and Obama) administration torture as it ought to be pushed, in the current American political climate. If you think a hundred people dead in interrogation cells is bad, how much worse is it if thousands of are people starving, dying of easily treatable illnesses, or committing suicide because someone decided that food stamps are for welfare queens and job creation is for communists? Because we actually confront a risk of that happening in the foreseeable future at this rate, at least until the madness of the American far right is repudiated at the polls.

I expect that will happen, but I wish I were more confident it would happen before a great deal of damage and wasted time is caused by the whole psychotic mess.