home

Obama's National Security Speech

The speech:

Text of the President's speech here More . . .

I found President Obama's discussion of the different categories of detainees pretty good. In the end, he is accepting a Geneva Convention based prisoner of war regime as his "preventive detention policy." Overall, I am somewhat encouraged by the speech on this point. "Make no mistake," President Obama stands in opposition to a Truth Commission.

Funniest line of the speech - "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable." Hell, Bush and Cheney could have said that.

Overall, I thought it was an encouraging speech with some serious flaws. Dick Cheney provides the rebuttal.

Dick Cheney's frightened response. Cheney calls for "a truthful telling of history." Here is a truth - Cheney is a depraved monster who did immeasurable damage to the country. It is a stain on this country that he ever held high office. BTW, Cheney's willingness to be the face of torture and the GOP is great news for Democrats. This Cheney speech is a tour de force in its genre of paranoia, defensiveness, mendacity and cluelessness. Cheney will not go away, and Obama exults about that.

< Crack-Powder Cocaine Disparity Hearing Today | Why Cheney Approved Of Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Reading the text now (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:54:10 AM EST
    It's pretty long for something meant to compete with "The Price is Right."

    "The Price is Right." (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    that was the banking/economy speech.

    seriously.  

    Cheney is the horrible gift that keeps on giving for democrats.  if they are smart they will put him in a box, with Liz, and ship them to Borneo before the 2010 elections.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    Some people don't think so.  Cheney's poll numbers have gone UP 8 points in a month (granted, they are still only at 395), and the National Republican Senate Committee raised more money than their Democratic counterparts (a 63% increase from the same time last cycle).

    They apparently don't think Cheney is bad or that they are down and out.

    Parent

    That should be (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:22:36 AM EST
    39%

    Parent
    amazing coincidence (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:43:02 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    Considering they are from 2 different polls.

    But here's the striking part:

    Most Republicans (54%) say the legal system is too concerned about individual rights. So do a plurality of voters not affiliated with either major party (42%).

    Democrats lean in the opposite direction. Thirty-four percent (34%) of those in the president's party say the courts are too concerned about national security, 24% hold the opposite view, and 32% say the balance is about right.



    Parent
    It's all just a song and dance... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jacob Freeze on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:38:27 PM EST
    In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe.

    It's the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It's the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

    The musical version of Obama's "National Security Song and Dance" is available at....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5OZY0vNSOQ

    And these are a few of his favorite things...

    1. Guantanamo
    2. Military commissions...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ_IHLNVP1U


    Parent
    I thought Cheney' numbers were more like (none / 0) (#160)
    by sallywally on Fri May 22, 2009 at 09:16:28 AM EST
    13%.

    Parent
    Uhhh (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:21:56 AM EST
    Ok, whatever.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    All I was saying is that Capt Howdy said Cheney is the gift that keeps giving to Democrats, but apparently he's also the gift to Republicans as they have registered 27,000 new donors this year.

    He's a lightning rod and they think he's helping them.

    Parent

    What they think (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:30:20 AM EST
    is clearly nuts. Cheney remains a despised figure.

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    I agree.  just because he is more popular with the wingnut base doesnt mean he wont be an albatross for the party in the next election.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    But right now, he's money in the bank to them, nuts or not.

    Parent
    All the money in the world (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    won't make up for his toxic public persona.

    Parent
    honestly (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:27:50 AM EST
    I hope they continue to believe that.
    I hope John Thune keeps on running around saying Obama is going to release terrorists to run in the streets killing at random.


    Parent
    If the Democrats were smart (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    they would begin to make the case that a nation cannot be led by leaders who are afraid and that the GOP's rhetoric  at this time is clearly not ready to lead.

    (of course, the Democrats are not smart).

    Parent

    Bush's number have gone up too (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    And Bush has stayed quiet.  

    Wingers coming home....

    Parent

    Maybe some citizens don't (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:45:26 PM EST
    think there has been enough of a change to rate Bush so low when Obama is getting high numbers for doing much the same as his predecessor.


    Parent
    Obama might not do everything we want, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    but there's no question he's doing much more for us than BushCo.  

    Parent
    Perhaps, but (none / 0) (#132)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:18:44 PM EST
    maybe the Republicans who voted for him aren't quite so sure he is so far off of the Bush policies to not be having something of a moment in buyer's remorse.  Afterall, if Obama can support some of the controversial Bush decisions, maybe they weren't as bad as people thought.


    Parent
    Absence makes the heart grow fonder (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Fri May 22, 2009 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    It seems the rating of most go up after they leave office.....

    Parent
    You didn't have to put this up here (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:55:55 AM EST
    as I'm coasting through my a.m. news.  I've been able to skip this whole show thusfar by it being trumped by own real life until now.  Okay.....so how does a military court bring to trial detainees who have violated military law when that same miliary standing in judgement of that detainee violated military law by torturing the detainee?  I'd just like to know who has any effing credibility in that court of lawlessness?

    Some dangerous detainees expressed their (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:59:40 AM EST
    allegance to Osama Bin Ladin?  Did this take place before, during, or after the water boarding and excuse me for needing some evidence but we are all going to have to see that video before we take anybody's "word" on any of this anymore.

    Parent
    On detaining people he can't charge (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:00:09 AM EST

    Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

    I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

    As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.

    I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. Other countries have grappled with this question, and so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees - not to avoid one. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so going forward, my Administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution.

    No idea what this means either, other than he's actually considering indefinite detention for some people, even if there's some kind of commission to rubber stamp the decision.

    Prisoners of War (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    I think it is a defensible approach.

    Parent
    Ok, well, when might the war end? (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:10:21 AM EST
    I don't think I can accept a system that could potentially detain unconvicted people forever just because the President and some Very Serious people say they're Evil, Evil, Evil.

    Parent
    And (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:25:34 AM EST
    They can be detailed as prisoners of war, but the Geneva Conventions are still quaint, right?

    It's the best of both world for the Supreme Power....we just have to hope we're never non-supreme.

    And I wonder, can China declare war on us, and then take prisoners just because?

    Parent

    If we were really to go to war with China (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:27:38 AM EST
    they could legally detain captured prisoners for the duration of the conflict. That's a different case.

    Parent
    And if they decided to unilaterally (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    declare war then they could do it -- and take our prisoners -- just as we've done with "terrah-ists".

    It's not that different a case.

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:54:53 AM EST
    China is a sovereign nation, with an army and a flag, whereas we imprisoned people who allegedly follow Osama bin-Laden, who is not a head of state, nor do they have an "organized" army or wear uniforms, etc.

    Parent
    What's analogous to a sovereign country (none / 0) (#112)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    like the USA waging war on non-state entities (Al Qaeda, the Taliban) within other sovereign states like Iraq and Afghanistan? It might be analogous to a sovereign state, like China, waging war on an American non-state entity, like the old Michigan Militia. Assuming that China suspected the Michigan Militia was fomenting anti-China sentiments.

    Parent
    what if China as a nation declared (none / 0) (#145)
    by of1000Kings on Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:46:24 PM EST
    war on an American business or Industry?

    pretty much the same, I guess...

    wonder what the reaction would be like here in America towards that...

    Parent

    You are mistaking (none / 0) (#108)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:35:05 PM EST
    the Obama administration for the Cheney administration (you're certainly not alone).

    Does it really need to be pointed out that it was Bush people, not Obama people, who pronounced the Geneva convention "quaint"?

    Parent

    When the Empire ends (none / 0) (#105)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:16:24 PM EST
    SO long as we occupy other countries and impose our values and customs in foreign lands there will be those who resist our presence.  Given our vast military superiority that resistance will take the form of "unconventional" warfare, or terrorism.  It comes with the [occupied] territory.

    Parent
    Will they get the full Geneva rights of POWs? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    I agree but surely people who have trained in (none / 0) (#26)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    explosives and threatened violence against US citizens are guilty of some thing under existing laws?  Why not try them for that?

    Parent
    Training in explosives and making threats against (none / 0) (#46)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:08:39 AM EST
    the US -- how will that apply to everyone? Or is it just those determined to be bad guys that will be charged with a crime or just "detained"?

    We've got lots of rightwing MCM

    Parent

    Criminal conspiracy (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:43:51 PM EST
    comes to mind, any RICO experts out there?

    I have always agreed with John Kerry, this terrorism is a criminal matter.

    Parent

    Oh, now he's talking about "the photos" (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:06:16 AM EST
    and he claims that nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of these crimes.  Total Bull$h*t!  He says this is all about a precious responsibility?  What about your responsibility for employing the specific talents of Stanley McChrystal now Mr. Obama?

    On Investigations (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:12:29 AM EST
    When it comes to the actions of the last eight years, some Americans are angry; others want to re-fight debates that have been settled, most clearly at the ballot box in November. And I know that these debates lead directly to a call for a fuller accounting, perhaps through an Independent Commission.

    I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws.

    Emphasis mine. Sounds like a whole lot of zero to me.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#30)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:42:35 AM EST
    I prefer the COngressional investigations and DOJ prosecutions to a "Truth" Commission.  I think pressure is on our pols to investigate.  Things our moving in the direction favored by those, like myself, who want accountability.  Time is on our side.

    Parent
    There hasn't been real "pressure"... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Dadler on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    ...on an American president from the American people since Watergate, maybe, probably longer.  We're pushing four decades of an American public aneasthetized by consumerism and seemingly genetically incapable of passionately calling out their "leaders" en masse.

    Pols in this country get as free a ride as any "democratic" place on earth.

    Parent

    This is true (none / 0) (#75)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    And I think today's speech was a recognition that the beast is beginning to stir after it's long slumber, and that "we" are not going to go away.

    I agree with BTD, it's a beginning, and Obama, being first and formost a master politician, senses he may have kicked us in the teeth once too often.

    Since a Pol is a Pol, we have to increase the pressure on him, until he realizes we're not going away. And the way to do that is to institute policies that make sense, since rhetoric clearly will not work; at least with us, it won't.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#86)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:39:04 PM EST
    but it is the only way it will happen.  And not just the President, congress critters as well, perhaps more importantly.

    I would point out that Jimmy Carter and GHW Bush might disagree about the free ride they received.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    Congressional investigations would be a joke.  It would be more blathering and most of the time would be spent on stuff like "Thank you Mr. Chairman for this great opportunity....." and "I'd like to take the time to thank my esteemed colleague from...." than actually investigating.  Can you imagine the media circus and the pols giving mini stump speeches in their statements? And of course, no real tough questions would be asked, so as not to offend the 50% of voters back home who don't agree with you....

    Parent
    Alternatively, they could be a flash point (none / 0) (#95)
    by lambert on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    We just don't know.

    Sam Ervin? Or Daniel Inouye?

    Parent

    Sam Ervin (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:52:56 PM EST
    probably couldn't have done what he did in this day of bloggers, 24 hour media, and what passes for journalism these days.  Even though he was going after the "bad guys", all we would have heard and read about was his opposition to civil rights (which of course, would have had nothing to do with a break-in and cover up).

    Today we have media personalities and bloggers so entrenched in their positions, that they do not want to debate arguments on the merits, but instead deride the messenger.  A speech given by Paul Begala will be torn to shreds on conservative sites, while an op-ed by Karl Rove would get the same treatment on liberal sites, without actually looking at all the argument piece-by-piece, with the dismissal that "Well, Paul/Karl said this, so it must be wrong and totally crazy."  It's ok to say, "You know, I disagree with most everything about this argument and here's why__, but I do think so-and-so makes a good argument about ___."

    Unfortunately, political information is presented to us in a black-or-white spectrum, when actually most issues have many shades of gray, which is ironic because the 'net was supposed to give us greater points of view with more people participating, but it only seems to have polarized us even more.

    Parent

    I think Rove is a poor example (none / 0) (#143)
    by lambert on Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    because the man reeks of evil, but I can agree with you on the principle. On the econoblogs, some of the staunchest opponents f, you know, outright looting and theft are conservatives. And Ron Paul, for all his faults, has it exactly right on the imperial mission: It's wrong, and we can't afford it. Not sure why there's no platform to support the extremes meeting... .

    Parent
    Isn't this the real reason they're (none / 0) (#161)
    by sallywally on Fri May 22, 2009 at 09:43:27 AM EST
    going after Pelosi so hard? To nullify Congressional investigations, etc.? And why aren't the Dems pointing out which Repub leaders got the same briefings?

    Parent
    And for a finale, he invokes his favorite (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    logical fallacy, the golden mean:

    We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

    Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.




    The golden mean may be a logical fallacy (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Faust on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:46:24 AM EST
    when it is used as a syllogistic proof, but not all golden means are false.

    Parent
    You need to argue (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    that the "middle position" makes sense on its own terms, or you are simply arguing a fallacy.

    Parent
    And the Roman Lee Hruska (none / 0) (#79)
    by Spamlet on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    Golden Mean Memorial Award goes to President Obama:

    "There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"
    Senator Roman Lee Hruska (R-Neb), 1970


    Parent
    Speaking for himself, no doubt. (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:09:00 PM EST
    I think he IS saying that the middle (none / 0) (#110)
    by Faust on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:46:03 PM EST
    makes sense on its own terms, though his argument is fairly thin.

    They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America.

    In my view his bigger mistake here is to classify the the left wing position as an extreme at all. While the right wing extreme is actually exemplified by the bush administration the left wing extreme he suggests doesn't really exist in my view, I'm not sure there is anyone out there who rejects ALL security in favor of transparency. So he does set up a straw man here on the left so he can be seeming to claim the middle ground, and there is some golden mean arguing going on here. The question is: is this merely mealy mouthed PPUS or is this an attempt at moving the overton window via straw men?

    I have no opinion but it's just not clear to me that it's a mere golden mean syllogism.

    Parent

    Welcom to President Straw Man (none / 0) (#117)
    by Slado on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:25:23 PM EST
    No one in political history has mastered the art of arguing against a position that doesn't exist as well as president Obama.

    It's always easy to sound reasnobale when the opponent of your ideas (right or left) is so extreme (of course actually finding that person is impossible because he's never named).

    Parent

    BuchCo set up strawmen all the time, but were not (none / 0) (#125)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    as smooth as Obama et al.

    BushBoy's stawmen really did look like children's scarecrows; Obama's require so analysis most of the time.

    Parent

    Well, if the opposing perspective to what (none / 0) (#126)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    we've done so far is that terrorists should be treated like suspected criminals, and many on the left have that opinion, then Obama's proposal is a reasonable middle ground between perpetual lockup without habeas corpus vs. releasing terrorists who have not carried out a terrorist act yet.

    Releasing terrorists because we can't prove they have or will attack us would be sacrificing our security for our values.

    Sacrificing our values for our security = abuse, torture (remember, many people think it works, or can work to prevent future strikes), and no access to courts.

    Common sense means changing the process so we can legally imprison terrorists, even if they haven't yet attacked us, but doing so within the framework of checks and balances (habeas corpus, true congressional oversight, and of course, no torture).


    Parent

    But what about the Constitution? Do we now set up (none / 0) (#131)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:15:38 PM EST
    some extreme unconstitutional situation and then find the "middle" between what is actually Constitutional and what some in power want to impose?

    Strict constructionists are gonna love that approach!

    And, from a more leftish perspective, how will the Bill of Rights be "middled"?

    Parent

    He!!, we're already not following the Constitution (none / 0) (#142)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 21, 2009 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    to my satisfaction. Why are we still floundering around denying same sex families marriage equality? Oh, that's right, because "tradition" trumps equality.  Heck, let's bring back the good old anti-miscegenous, no divorce, women-as-property Traditional Marriage.  Sorry, have to rant once in a while.

    Parent
    First of all, what happened at the ballot box (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by Anne on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    in November (referred to in his remarks that you also brought over) does not automatically end the right of the people to question the actions and policies of the new president, nor does it wipe the slate clean for the administration that was replaced.  

    And he is wrong to suggest that an Independent Commission is being called for to settle "debates" - I don't want a debate about who was right and who was wrong, whether torture is effective or not; I want an investigation that will establish the facts of the who, what, when, where and why, regardless of party affiliation, get it all out on the table and then decide whether what we've learned calls for something more.

    If Obama thinks our existing institutions can deliver accountability, he hasn't been paying much attention to the kabuki theater production that is taking place in the Congress, nor did he pay much attention to the repeated attempts of the Democrats to investigate various and sundry issues that are too numerous to mention, most of which ended with sternly-worded letters that did nothing to compel the testimony, appearance or cooperation of individuals within the Bush administration who were involved.  

    I really hate the way Obama establishes the extremes of a framework so that he can position himself in the middle and declare himself to have the best position.  Not so long ago, he was one of the ones calling for more transparency and accountability, and now he is aligning himself with the national security crowd, and denigrating - that's what really bothers me - those who are still opposed to the Bush policies and still want transparency.  

    I didn't find much of what he said reassuring - I think it was a compilation of his various statements over the last couple of weeks - and I am really, really tired of being patted on the head and expected to be fobbed off with a nice little speech.  It's just not enough, and it's insulting, to boot.


    Parent

    What dictator has ever failed ... (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:48:49 AM EST
    to cite
    the unique challenges posed by terrorism

    as a justification for totalitarian rule?

    So now, those of who believe in the rule of law are ideologues.

    Parent

    NY Post reporter Charles Hurt (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    on XM a few minutes ago was very admiring and said Obama has now been revealed as a realist in standing up to his left wing. He breathlessly even said Obama sounded like Bush.

    I had not heard any of the speech before I heard that on my way home here to lunch, so I was relieved that at least BTD found positive aspects. Will watch it and read it for myself now.

    Parent

    An Extended Relitigation of the last 8 years? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:16:42 AM EST
    Are you kidding me?  Was I in a Coma and then unknown to me woke after the original litigation took place and now I have inappropriate unmet needs?  I'm totally lost here!  Since when is litigation a rigid ideology to solving our problems?  Sorry Obama dude, but litigation gave us all a reason to drop our weapon.  Feck.........I can't handle it.  I must go wash something now.

    Take a deep breath, Tracy... (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldpro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    Litigation is always about reliving the past, no?

    Parent
    No! Litigation is legal debate (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    There has been no legal debate.  Only suppression to attempt to prevent the legal debate from taking place.  He's really pissing me off.  He is LYING through the use of prettified verbage.

    Parent
    I think we're talking past (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    one another...

    Parent
    I disagree (none / 0) (#32)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    litigaiotn takes time and time is on the side of those who want Bushco and Dickhead held accountable.  Cases need to be made (admitting that Cheney has already admitted to, nah, boasted about his crimes).  The publci is on board and Congress is increasingly as well.  Then DOJ.

    Patience and vigilance in pressuring our pols.

    Parent

    You disagree about what (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:49:57 AM EST
    Obama has said that he is not for some sort of extended relitigation of the past eight years.  What original litigation took place?

    Parent
    That there's no legal debate and full (none / 0) (#88)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    suppression.  Obama has released  alot, not enough, but enough to get people riled and paying attention.  More disclosure will follow with public pressure.  More pressure to prosecute.

    Parent
    Your the president now (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Slado on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:39:39 AM EST
    Time to take responsiblity.

    On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004.

    Cheney's speech is one of someone who's made a decision.  Obviously most here disagree with his opinion but he's not mixing his message.

    Obama's speech is a weird combination of Seantaor/Candidate/President.  He needs to stop campaigning and start making decisions.

    I'm tired of the moving target which is president Obama.

    Stop blaming (none / 0) (#67)
    by maddog on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    the previous administration.  You were elected to be president.  Don't make excuses make decisions.

    A Cheney rebuttal.  The speeches were at almost the exact same time.  Did Obama provide Cheney with his speech so that he could rebut the points?

    Parent

    Obama speech supposedly scheduled AFTER (none / 0) (#162)
    by sallywally on Fri May 22, 2009 at 09:54:38 AM EST
    they knew Cheney's was scheduled. Some on the right are saying Cheney moved Obama (1) to give the speech, making Obama's speech the rebuttal and therefore secondary, and (2) toward the Bush-Cheney policies. Even David Brooks approves of Obama's stands in today's NYT.

    Meaning that once again Cheney/Repubs/right-wingnuts are setting the agenda.

    Oh yeah, and that a disgraced former VP is at the same level as the current President. All media seem to be treating them as equals.

    Parent

    Cheney Has The Gall... (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by santarita on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    to talk about protecting CIA agents.  I hope that Valerie Plame Wilson gets some air time to talk about how Cheney protected her.

    Cheney is passionate about trying to protect his legacy.  Way too passionate.  He has forgotten the notion that actions speak louder than words and that history will judge his legacy based on actions.  His attempts at justification now suggest to me a guilty conscience.  I think he's trying to convice himself as much as anyone else.

    Well, Cheney seems (none / 0) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:07:38 PM EST
    to be doing pretty well of late---he is the spokesman for the Republicans, his approval ratings have gone up (8 percent according to CNN/Opinion), and he seems to be rattling President Obama, what with the flip-flops and all.  And, he is pushing his book.   Many disagree, but I do not rule out his working toward  his life-long ambition of president in 2012. After all, reality was never his strong suit.  

    Parent
    The beauty of being a 4th (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    branch of government all by yourself is that you can do it forever. No government office needed.

    Parent
    Is there really any mystery as to why Obama doesn't want to see any members of the previous administration undergo criminal investigations/prosecutions? After all, Obama is retaining numerous policies of the prior administration. So, it would appear that Obama, the "pragmatist", is actually benefiting from the fact that Cheney is out there making the case for the alleged efficacy of those policies. Cheney couldn't perform that vital service if he were in the dock.

    Perhaps that explains why Obama's DOJ officially threw Plame and Wilson under the bus a couple of days ago. Here's the headline from CREW's blog: Obama admin. opposes Joe and Valerie Wilson's request for Supreme Court appeal in suit against Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage.

    Parent

    I hate to say it but (none / 0) (#163)
    by sallywally on Fri May 22, 2009 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    your hypothesis makes some sense....Cheney helping Obama be Bush semi-lite or maybe not lite at all.

    At the same time relentlessly and successfully pushing Obama to the right.

    Parent

    It's a good cop/bad cop charade... (none / 0) (#175)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:53:19 PM EST
    Cheney is concertedly ramping up his "dark side" to an extreme that makes stuff like the Obama/Bush military tribunals and "preventive detention" look pragmatic and centrist by comparison. Voila, they all benefit - even Cheney's poll approval numbers are going up.

    Evidently, he's moving public opinion to the right - all the better to evade prosecution for past crimes and manufacture support for more of the same in future.

    Parent

    I'm glad Lawrence O'Donnell is around... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by magster on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:05:53 AM EST
    ...to set the tone of the post-Cheney speech blather on MSNBC.  

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    Your mistake is in watching MSNBC. Far better to read the transcripts and get on with your live.

    Parent
    But that takes work... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by magster on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    I need to be entertained.

    Parent
    O'Donnell certainly is (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    entertaining-- as long as you're mad at the same people he's mad at.  He was flat-out enraged by Cheney's speech.

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#150)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    he was equally "mad" at Hillary Clinton for having the audacity to not quit when she was told to so the coronation of his Love God could take place on schedule.

    Other than that, he's o.k.

    Parent

    Coronation? (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:31:10 AM EST
    I believe it was the result of primary elections and caucuses.  And Obama's no Messiah just a pol, the most successful one at the moment.

    Parent
    Let's not forget, in no small measure (none / 0) (#176)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 23, 2009 at 12:10:17 AM EST
    "it was the result" of Donna Brazile and the DNC leadership hijacking the Rules and Bylaws Committee and f@cking with the outcome of the Florida and Michigan primaries - in May, 2008, 3 months prior to the DNC National Convention. It's important to look back - you know, to understand our history in order not to repeat it.

    Parent
    Exactly what (none / 0) (#177)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 23, 2009 at 12:44:08 AM EST
    I was alluding to.

    Parent
    What is consistently disturbing... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Dadler on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    ...is how he equivocates with EVERYthing.  Mabyes and cans and shoulds and woulds and whever possibles, and all the other crap that is the hallmark of someone who is, in the end, rooted in nothing but self-promotion.

    David Gregory described Obama as Rigid Pragmatist (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:14:21 AM EST
    Said Obama has a need to come down in the middle (golden mean stuff). The problem I see is that Obama sets his own parameters and thus predetermines what the "middle" will be.

    Ex: Healthcare. Cuts out single payer, won't consider it; so, any middle doesn't start from single payer, but closer to the other side.

    Parent

    the Alinsky (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:14:20 AM EST
    administration

    Parent
    Did Alinsky equivocate in this way? I'm not sure (none / 0) (#55)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    Alinsky is to blame for Obama's "Rigid Pragmatism."

    Parent
    all about (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:18:52 AM EST
    self promotion and clinging to power in every way possible

    Parent
    I'll accept that--but what does Alinsky have to do (none / 0) (#77)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:56:13 AM EST
    with Obama's "self promotion and clinging to power"?

    Parent
    Cheney is a ghastly crackpot, (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Radiowalla on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    ghoulish, mendacious, dangerous.   This speech was a stinging slap in the face to Obama.  I wonder what the response will be.

    On Military Commissions (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:57:34 AM EST
    Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. The rule will no longer permit us to use as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify. These reforms - among others - will make our Military Commissions a more credible and effective means of administering justice, and I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.
    This seems to me mushy and messy, and asking for new legislation may be a mistake.

    To me it seems like reinventing the wheel, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    but with plenty of wiggle room and loopholes and authority to deviate without consequence.

    Parent
    Placing burden on party introducing hearsay (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:38:40 AM EST
    to demonstrate its relaibility seems to me in full accord with Federal Rules of Evidence which lists specific indicators of reliability and provides a catch all for other genuine indicia of reliability.

    Parent
    Sounds good (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:40:39 AM EST
    I haven't taken Evidence, so I don't really know first hand.

    As always the devil is in the details.

    Parent

    Obama is still claiming precog abilities: He will (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:06:23 AM EST
    be able to determine which detainees are going to bad things and thus can be detained for long periods of time bcz they're going to bad things in the future.

    Obama the Precog!

    Parent

    Wouldn't that require actually (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    meeting each detainee for him to use his "special" skill?

    Why do I have an image of Johnny Carson popping up in my head . . . ?

    Parent

    Nah--the process willl be digitized. No need to (none / 0) (#78)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    make personal contact.

    Parent
    Wrong. (none / 0) (#169)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:21:53 AM EST
    He specifically said it shouldn't be the president assessing detainees. He wants to create a process that involves the courts and has congressional oversight. Hey, here's an idea - how about you stop flippantly insulting him and suggest your own ideas instead? What would YOU do with people the military have captured who have attended al-Qaeda training camps? Let `em go because they haven't yet committed an act of terrorism?

    Parent
    Returning to Terrorism (none / 0) (#6)
    by RustedView on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:02:56 AM EST
    Hey all,

    I was hoping that the "cloud" could help me out on this.  I ran across this NY Times Article today.  I remember that this was all the kerfuffle a few months back, and that it came out that things like writing op eds were counted as terrorism, but I haven't been able to find any of the commentary on that.

    Does anyone remember this, and/or have links to articles debunking the Pentagon claim?

    I do remember it (none / 0) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    but I have no links for you.

    Parent
    OTOH, and I'm very happy with this: (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    The Framers who drafted the Constitution could not have foreseen the challenges that have unfolded over the last two hundred and twenty two years. But our Constitution has endured through secession and civil rights - through World War and Cold War - because it provides a foundation of principles that can be applied pragmatically; it provides a compass that can help us find our way.
    For anyone who lives in the real world, this  should be obvious. I'm glad he's saying it in the shadow of a Supreme Court appointment, though.

    Cheny LIVE now at AEI (none / 0) (#14)
    by oldpro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    on CNN.

    Big favor to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:21:56 AM EST
    Is David Axelrod paying him to speak?

    Parent
    NO KIDDING! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    Nuthin like jumping right in and making Obama look like some flaming liberal instead of the slightly right of center that he is on National Security!

    Parent
    Someone should Mirandize Cheney (none / 0) (#16)
    by magster on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    "I approved all major decisions we used to protect our country..."

    Parent
    No doubt they were "no brainers" (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:48:02 AM EST
    everything is when you lack a brain.

    Parent
    Got a link to the text? (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    Not that I really care what he says.

    Parent
    OMG (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    I guess he has bunker fever.  Someone at DK makes the point.

    But this Obama vs Cheney thing has me over the top.  What the hell is going on?



    Parent
    Politics. Politics is 'going on.' (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oldpro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:52:49 AM EST
    This is the public debate of ideas...the framing of arguments to fit an ideology. Fear is the basic goal...make people afraid of Obama and the Democrats. The next election is just around the corner.  Cheney is taking the first shots in that war, establishing the 'us vs. them' bottom line.

    Cheney is calling Obama on the Bush policies he is maintaining, including presidential powers, to be used in the future as he sees fit.

    Parent

    "William Gates"? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    The founder of Microsoft is now the Secretary of Defense?  Hmmmm....explains a few things.....

    I noticed that too (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Slado on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    I thought we had a president who could read a teleprompter now?

    Funny how no one goes after Obama for all his screw ups (51 states?) because we all assume he's so brillian (I think he's very smart and only point out the double standard applied to Bush vs. Obama).

    Parent

    You noticed wrong, lol (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Jensational on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:06:09 PM EST
    He actually said 57 states, lol.

    Parent
    To be precise.... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri May 22, 2009 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    he said they had already been to all but 2-3 states, so far, and that made it, what, 57 states already visited. So, he actually implied we have 59-60 states.

    I do not think Obama is brilliant, or smarter than the average person capable of getting through to graduation at the college level. I do, however, think he is an above average manipulator who picks associates who can pave his way to whatever destination he's looking to reach.


    Parent

    Yeh, inclluding that great state (none / 0) (#152)
    by Cream City on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:13:26 PM EST
    he said is on the Great Lakes: Oregon.

    Parent
    C'mon Cream (none / 0) (#168)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri May 22, 2009 at 11:13:35 AM EST
    You know very well Obama knows where Oregon is. You know he's smart. Everyone makes a few mistakes, and that was likely just a brain burp or slip of attention. God knows I've had plenty myself. How about sticking to valid criticism of his policy decisions. There's plenty there to be pointed out, from giving away the house in bailouts to dragging his feet on LGBT equality. Let's stay focused and get what we want from this guy. Making fun of our Prez for a simple mistake is what we have Faux News for.


    Parent
    If it were the only one, it would be funny (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Sat May 23, 2009 at 04:46:51 PM EST
    and forgettable -- and if the previous holder of the same office had not been pilloried for similar mistakes.  Not to mention this president's opponents who said such awful things such as that LBJ had a role in passing the civil rights laws.

    Nope, c'mon yourself.

    Parent

    I saw/read that he was meeting with (none / 0) (#98)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:29:44 PM EST
    the biggest Billionaires....Gates, Buffett, Winfrey, etc.  Perhaps he was just thinking about that meeting when he messed up on the name.

    Must say that the idea of William Gates in charge of our country's defense is really scarey. All the stories of his jumping on top of tables stomping his feet when his friends disagreed with him take on a new image.

    Parent

    One would think (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jbindc on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:59:13 PM EST
    He would know the guy's name without looking at a teleprompter!

    Parent
    It's an interesting slip that can mean (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Cream City on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    the difference between just reading it and really meaning it.  (Saw that in a study of speechifying.)

    Parent
    Just a fw days ago (none / 0) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 21, 2009 at 07:58:53 PM EST
    the guy who introduced Bob Gates to the troops in Afghanistan called him "Bill" also.

    Plagiarism?

    Parent

    Nah. Remember,the plagiarist (none / 0) (#151)
    by Cream City on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:12:28 PM EST
    is Biden.

    Parent
    Maybe Wm Gates Sr? (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    He's much more of a fair minded human being than his son is.

    For instance, he believes in raising taxes on the rich.

    Parent

    Cheney sez (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    that whether or not we torture is a "political disagreement." Bleh.

    Current prez says he's against a Truth Commission- (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jawbone on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    So am I (none / 0) (#91)
    by BobTinKY on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:44:48 PM EST
    I prefer real prosecution which I anticipate will take time but iwll be forthcoming.

    Parent
    Well it can't seem to be a legal one (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    Thanks to our current President!

    Parent
    Anything (none / 0) (#36)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    President Obama says should be stamped with a "best if used" by date.  Anytime after that date, his statements no longer count.  

    Yeah, because Stay the Course (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    until you run off the cliff is so much better than the stink of a problem solving pragmatist.  I'm not happy with Obama right now but stay the course can KMA.  In fact.......if the expiration date runs out on most of what he said here I'll be very very happy.

    Parent
    how about a truth commission (none / 0) (#50)
    by Turkana on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    to tell that truthful history?

    heheh (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by lilburro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    "House Republicans to Seek Investigation of Pelosi"

    A senior House Republican aide said: "...The Speaker has had a full week now to either produce the evidence or retract and apologize, and she's done neither. There is no choice now. A bipartisan investigation is needed to get to the facts."

    Amen!

    Parent

    that would be awesome... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by of1000Kings on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    might be the best way to actually prove that the CIA lied...considering the CIA has already been shown to keep horrible records (as even some R's dispute that they had briefings with the CIA, while the CIA claimed the briefings happened)...

    the stupid Repubs investigating Pelosi might be the best thing that could happen to this situation...

    are Repubs really this stupid?  really...I just find that hard to believe...well, for the most part

    Parent

    IT DOESN'T MATTER IF TORTURE WORKS (none / 0) (#57)
    by BruceM on Thu May 21, 2009 at 11:17:20 AM EST
    We simply must get past this "it saved american lives" bullcrap about torture.  It does not matter. First of all, all the evidence is to the contrary - that it produced no actionable information.  But even if it did, that doesn't mean there wasn't another non-torturous way of getting the same information.  And even if there was no other non-torturous way of getting that same information, it simply does not matter.  WE DO NOT TORTURE.

    Don't give me the "ticking timebomb" scenario from the show 24 - where a terrorist says "The bomb is set to go off but you'll never find it muahahaha!" because that only happens on stupid TV shows and in dumb Nicholas Cage movies.  NEVER (as in not once, ever) in real life.  

    It is worth the lives of 10,000 dead, bloody, charred, mangled American babies for us to not be a nation that tortures people.  Unless you're willing to take that clear moral ground, you are as confused as The Dick Cheney.

    Actually Cheney isn't confused, he's just concerned that the Obama administration is going to prosecute him the way the Bush administration would be prosecuting Obama and everyone he knows for committing acts of torture if the situation were reversed (and for once, Bush would be in the right).


    It Doesn't Matter if Torture Works??? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jensational on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:07:15 PM EST
    We simply must get past this "it saved american lives" bullcrap about torture.  It does not matter.

    Well, let me ask you this:  Would it have mattered if your son or daughter had been killed by a terrorist here on our soil?  Would it have mattered if another plane had been hijacked and rammed into another skyscraper full of Americans?  EVEN BETTER..... what would you all have done if we had been attacked again, let's say in 2006, with the same kind of ferocity as 9/11 - I GUARANTEE you would ALL be saying "It's Bush's fault because they didn't do enough to protect us!"  No question!

    Parent

    pssst! It wasn't just Americans on those planes (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by nycstray on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:22:35 PM EST
    and in the skyscrapers.

    And guess what, if we were attacked again . . .
    TORTURE WOULD STILL BE WRONG.

    Parent

    Americans (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jensational on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:41:20 PM EST
    I'm well aware there were other nationalities in the planes and skyscrapers.  The post I was commenting on used the word "Americans", I simply responded.  May I remind you that waterboarding is hardly torture and that our enemies and even our allies use much harsher methods of interrogation than what we used and they don't have medical doctors standing around to make sure the terrorists were not physically harmed and were not subjected to these methods for more than a few minutes at a time. We are a LOT less harsh than other countries and now the enemy knows this.

    Parent
    "a LOT less harsh?! Really?! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by nycstray on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:03:08 PM EST
    tell that to the ones we killed.

    So, you'd be up for a bit of waterboarding, eh? How long would you like to try it for?

    Parent

    Waterboarding is not torture? (none / 0) (#154)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:39:16 AM EST
    Since when?

    And if my children were killed I would not advocate torture, nor am I naive enough to beleive it would prevent the deaths of potential terrorist victims.  People being tortured cop to anything and everything, the reliability of the information provided is near zero.

    Clearly, Cheney OK'd torture not to get accurate information but to obtain "confessions" regarding the non-existent Iraq-Al Queda link.  TO justify aggression (for oil, Cheney had it in his sights long before he became VP) that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of American, but mostly Iraqi, deaths and hundreds of thousands of more ruined lives.

    And now we measure our humanity and adherence to our own Constitution by comparing ourselves to "worse" regimes.  

    Parent

    A lot less harsh? (none / 0) (#164)
    by sallywally on Fri May 22, 2009 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    Evidence? Concrete, specific, able to be backed up?

    Parent
    No, it doesn't matter if torture works. (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Anne on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:59:15 PM EST
    When you start getting into the "what if's" you are on a path that leads nowhere you want to go, because you are ceding the decisions about what is important enough to warrant torture to the subjective judgment of people like Dick Cheney.

    Your unbelieveably wrong-headed comment below about waterboarding not being torture and patting us on the back for having doctors present (individuals who, in my opinion, do not deserve that title - the "first, do no harm" oath seems to have escaped them) while we kindly and gently subject evil people to the gentle application of water, is exactly the reason why torture is now and should always be against both domestic and international law.

    If you don't get that, all I can suggest is a career writing scripts for "24;" there, your worldview would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure.  Here, you are not going to find much support.

    Parent

    Torture (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jensational on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:10:12 PM EST
    Seeing as you completely missed my point and didn't bother to answer the question I submitted, let me explain that it's the What Ifs that we have to be prepared for!  As far as finding support here, believe me, Anne, I didn't expect to in the first place.

    Parent
    Jen, even if torture works, (none / 0) (#133)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:24:43 PM EST
    if we can get the same information in other ways, then we should. It's already been reported that techniques used before the CIA tortured detainees gave better (more accurate) intelligence.

    Cheney used torture to try to prove a link between Al-Qaeda and 9/11, not just to prevent future terrorist attacks.  Even before the American public had their say on whether or no we should torture, it was already being abused by these maniacs. Given the amount of money Bushco and the oil interests behind him made from the war in Iraq, I really don't believe Cheney's intent was to protect you and me.  


    Parent

    What if they torture you or one of your children? (none / 0) (#155)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:40:40 AM EST
    DO you think once it is an accepted practice (none / 0) (#156)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:41:25 AM EST
    any one of us is immune?  

    Parent
    Do you think tif orture is an accepted practice (none / 0) (#157)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:42:49 AM EST
    any one of us is immune?  That is the point of my what if question above, I would hope no one is tortured and wish you and yours no such fate.

    Parent
    Maybe torturing bad drivers (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:32:14 PM EST
    would keep them off the streets and save a lot more lives than we lost on 9/11. Should we do that too?

    Torture is an idiotic method of risk reduction. That's because it is designed to elicit false confessions, not reduce real risk.

    Parent

    Bad Drivers (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jensational on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    Oh, please!  You're actually going to compare bad drivers to 9/11??  That's really reaching, my friend.  

    Parent
    it is you (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:47:21 PM EST
    who are reaching.  with this:

    "Would it have mattered if your son or daughter had been killed"

    I am so sick of hearing this.  even if it may sometimes be true the throes of grief is not exactly the state in which to make national security policy.

    this is a totally facile argument.  it has no place in a serious discussion of torture.

    Parent

    I don't know CH, seems some (none / 0) (#134)
    by coast on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:25:54 PM EST
    in our Senate might disagree.

    "And I'd like to interject a note of balance here. There are times when we all get in high dudgeon. We ought to be reasonable about this. I think there are probably very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical: If we knew that there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is most Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say, Do what you have to do. So it's easy to sit back in the armchair and say that torture can never be used. But when you're in the foxhole, it's a very different deal." - unnamed Senator

    Parent

    an idiotic senator (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 05:00:01 PM EST
    is not news.  an idiotic senator making the ridiculous "ticking bomb" argument is unfortunately not news either.

    I hope to god it was at least a republican senator.
    but I wouldnt bet the farm.


    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#139)
    by coast on Thu May 21, 2009 at 05:07:49 PM EST
    Sen. Charles Schumer - June 8, 2004.  Apparently a time when torture wasn't so taboo.

    Parent
    as he said (none / 0) (#158)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:44:02 AM EST
    an idiotic Senator

    Parent
    senator (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jensational on Fri May 22, 2009 at 02:45:10 PM EST
    unfortunately, we're in the hornets nest here.  No one here is willing to listen to reason, they just want to talk about how "bad" America is - how "bad" we are as Americans.  My family has served in this battle and he has seen just how ruthless these people are.  I never condoned torture, just don't agree that waterboarding is considered torture.  But here, they say I support torture.  Funny how they start name-calling when you throw out a good point, huh?

    Parent
    Thank your family (none / 0) (#174)
    by coast on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:23:21 PM EST
    for their service and the sacrifices they have made.

    Parent
    response (none / 0) (#166)
    by BruceM on Fri May 22, 2009 at 10:55:09 AM EST
    "Would it have mattered if your son or daughter had been killed by a terrorist here on our soil?"

    Do you mean would I support torture in that instance?  No.  Why would I?  It is not effective, it's not American, it doesn't gain reliable information, and it puts more americans in danger since it's such a great propaganda tool for Anti-American Muslims ("They torture us as they suck Israel's dick - so jihad the hell out of America!  Lalallalalalalalala!").

    "What would you all have done if we had been attacked again, let's say in 2006, with the same kind of ferocity as 9/11 - I GUARANTEE you would ALL be saying 'It's Bush's fault because they didn't do enough to protect us!'"

    It depends on the facts.  Just because we're attacked by terrorists does not in and of itself mean the current president is automatically to blame.  Bush was negligent in the first 9 months of his administration, ignoring everything about Bin Laden, Al Queda, and terrorism in general to pontificate about Jesus and Stem Cells.  So I do blame him in part for 9-11.  If a democrat president had been that negligent I'd blame him, too.  Regardless, "doing enough to protect us" does not ever include torture.  I don't blame Bush for 9-11 because he wasn't torturing anti-american terrorist suspects during the first 9 months of his administration.  I've never said he should have tortured to prevent 9-11.  I don't know anyone who has, not even Republicans.  I will NEVER blame a president for a terrorist attack because his policy precluded torture.  NEVER.  

    Parent

    Where is jearlyn now?????? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Iamme on Fri May 22, 2009 at 01:29:09 PM EST
    10,000 dead bloody charred mangled American babies are worth us not to torture?  Sick just plain sick.  

    Yo Jeralyn where you at now.  You like to pick at me for having a different opinion.  How about somebody saying this?????? Or does that not apply to your site?

    Do what you want with this account.  This sounds like someone who should have been in South America in the early ages.  Lets sacrifice people so the sun keeps coming up.

    Parent

    I agree with Obama on most of what he said (none / 0) (#83)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:17:46 PM EST
    Preventative detention is a reasonable solution for to preventing terroristic attacks, but we certainly need a new legal framework. What good is the current system of punishment after the fact when we're dealing with people who are completely willing to kill themselves in an attempt to kill us? These attacks are a culmination of a lifetime of political/religious brainwashing, and may be a criminal's one and only terrorist act. You can't put an attacker in jail if they're one of the thousands of dead at ground zero. And yes, I know prosecuting people before they commit a crime is currently not part of our legal framework. But it is part of our war philosophies, and even part of our concepts of self defense. If a military combatants intend to shoot you, you can shoot them first. In this case the enemy may not be a military combatant, but the concept should still apply. If someone comes into your home with a weapon, you're justified in shooting them before they shoot you (albeit you may have to show that they intended you harm.) So I don't think it's a stretch to apply that concept to potential terrorists. The problem is, a good legal framework doesn't exist yet, and what the Bush Admin has put in place is indefensible. I expect that Congress will create new law to handle this situation, and when that happens we should ensure that individual protections are in place.

    Where I disagree with Obama is his decision to move forward instead of investigating what happened that allowed our government to torture in our name.  Cheney said a very important sentence in his blowhard speech after the Prez spoke.  Cheney said that given the same circumstances, he would make the same decisions again. That is exactly why we need to prevent future administrators from doing what Bush and Cheney did. The laws that mandate Congressional notification of covert or potentially illegal actions were created to deal with widespread abuses by our intelligence agencies. The House and Senate intelligence committees are entrusted with the faith of the American people to oversee aggressive intelligence operations done in our name, and to ensure that they are necessary, effective and consistent with American laws and values. If Cheney et. al. were able to get the individual CIA staff who briefed the House Select Committee on Intelligence to report that torture was deemed legal but wasn't in use yet, to in effect, lie to Pelosi et. al., then they've easily bypassed the checks and balances meant to prevent illegal government actions.

    Using torture is the biggest military policy reversal in our lifetimes, a change that not only endangers our military and taints our great country but is also clearly against signed treaties and international law, and today no one can say for sure if it actually was properly reported to Congress' Intelligence Committees, the final watchdogs on the CIA and military.

    To "move forward," we need to fix the process so it can't be subverted again. For that very reason, we need a Truth Commission to figure out exactly where the congressional reporting system broke down.


    Are you sure you don't mean protective custody? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by lambert on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:11:45 PM EST
    This terminology is so confusing.

    Remember that when "wild eyed liberals" are demonized, that puts most anyone to their left in the "extremist" category, and that's as near a terra-ist as could be, at least in the eyes of some. You know, union leaders, the intelligentsia, people who post on left wing blogs...

    Just saying.

    Parent

    To amplify... (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by lambert on Thu May 21, 2009 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    That Obama has rationalized and consolidated Bush's authoritarian gains by moving the Overton Window right on executive power with  the idea of preventive detention is... Oh, like a sack of wet sand to the head. Ugh.

    Parent
    Yeah, which is why we need habeas corpus (none / 0) (#137)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:42:30 PM EST
    so people like you don't end up stashed away for years with no one knowing where you are...

    Parent
    I'm confused.... (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by sallywally on Fri May 22, 2009 at 10:12:07 AM EST
    about where Habeas Corpus fits in with indefinite detention of those who have committed no act of terrorism but seem like they might do so....

    what's the difference between that and a person who writes against Obama or U.S. policies on a lefty blog? You know such a person will engage in activities to change either the Pres or the policies.

    Parent

    I think we're smart enough (none / 0) (#167)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri May 22, 2009 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    (and the courts are smart enough) to tell the difference between an angry blogger and someone who has actually participated in an al-Qaeda training camp.  The point is that habeas corpus protects people from being erroneously accused.  We don't want to be putting someone in jail just because his neighbor hates him and has claimed he's a terrorist.  A properly working system will prevent that.  Which is why we need to be involved to ensure the new system works properly to protect the wrongly accused.

    Parent
    Obama's Security Speech (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jensational on Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    I am just flabbergasted over here.  For the first couple of minutes, he sounded credible.  Then he started spewing more crap about how he has to "clean  up the mess he inherited" and how "the Bush admin clearly didn't know what they were doing" and the same old crap over and over again.  This man's own party wouldn't give him the money to close Gitmo because he had NO PLAN!  And now his plan is to put them into US jails INDEFINITELY - gee sound familiar?  It just makes no sense to persecute one man while you, yourself, does exactly the same thing.  Obama talks about how he has studied the Constitution and strives to protect and uphold the laws of the Constitution?  Then WHY is he dismantling GM and giving it to FIAT and the UAW while the government holds the remaining interest?  How can he say that when he is now telling the carmakers what kind of car they can make?  Telling the banks that they can't repay the TARP funds even if they have the money to do it?  Geithner wants to control ALL banks and financial institutions and set pay scales for those private companies - all of which are against the constitution!  But, I digress......regarding these national security speeches, it is inherently obvious that Obama is still apologizing for the US .  I cannot believe he actually said that our holding those prisoners in Gitmo did nothing more than make more terrorists in other countries - that blows me away.  Unbelievable!  And the left just lets him get away with the rhetoric that is so completely outrageous.  Have any of you actually listened to Dick Cheney's security speech?  You need to listen to it objectively and rationally.  Bush and Cheney did what they had to do to protect YOU and ME and they did it succesfully.  I don't know about you guys but I am proud of the way they protected YOU and ME and our families.  Waterboarding isn't considered torture but beheading is what the enemy does best or did you all forget that.  This is no longer about who did what but about protecting our country.  I'm just astounded that my countrymen are out to get someone that saved their lives and that the left is blind to that fact.  I know this post will not get through to any of you but at least I have said my piece.  I will now let you people rip me apart for my views and I will still be astounded at the viciousness of my fellow Americans on the Left.

    Peace brother (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ruffian on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    Rip you apart? Nah... (none / 0) (#115)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:08:25 PM EST
    My two middle fingers (my typing fingers) have better things to do. I kid, I kid.

    Parent
    Fingers (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jensational on Thu May 21, 2009 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    LOL, that was a good one, though!  ;-)

    Parent
    Warm bubble bath (none / 0) (#135)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    with a nice glass of wine will take the edge off.

    How can we be a civilized population who abhors the idea of spanking our children into submission, but think that waterboarding a foreigner who is simply suspected of being in a gang is just fine and only for our own good.


    Parent

    Since when (none / 0) (#141)
    by kmblue on Thu May 21, 2009 at 05:16:06 PM EST
    is waterboarding not considered torture?  Have you forgotten we prosecuted other countries for doing it to our troops?

    Parent
    desperate times call for desperate measures (none / 0) (#146)
    by of1000Kings on Thu May 21, 2009 at 07:01:30 PM EST
    right, my friend?

    if the private companies didn't put themselves into these desperate situations they wouldn't need our desperate measures...

    hey, maybe that argument does indeed work...maybe I'm wrong on torture...

    well, maybe not...

    Parent

    we on the left are so vicious that we don't (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by of1000Kings on Thu May 21, 2009 at 07:03:06 PM EST
    want another human being to be tortured...

    man, how vicious we are...

    Parent

    while some of what you describe is certainly bad (none / 0) (#159)
    by BobTinKY on Fri May 22, 2009 at 07:46:25 AM EST
    policy (TALF), exactly none of it is uncontitutional.  Take a class.

    Parent
    Great speech and good timing (none / 0) (#140)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 05:08:44 PM EST


    Yeah, he's a pol (none / 0) (#144)
    by lambert on Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    They're expected to give well timed great speeches; that's the baseline.

    But when you come down off the high, you keep hearing words like "preventive detention." Think Bush could have sold that one?

    Parent

    Bush couldn't have sold it (none / 0) (#148)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 21, 2009 at 07:19:11 PM EST
    because he didn't respect congress and chose not to work within our system to craft the system.    

    That being said, if Bush hadn't screwed the pooch and not tortured these individuals to info (be it correct or not) and used recognized methods, I think we could prosecute them (I think???)

    Parent