• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama flip-flops on potential torture prosecutions

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture. …

The Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods “reflected us losing our moral bearings.” The president said that he did not think it was “appropriate” to prosecute those CIA officers who “carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House.”

But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that “with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.”

Just yesterday, asked by a reporter as to why the administration was not seeking to “hold accountable” Bush administration lawyers who may have “twisted the law,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “the president is focused on looking forward, that’s why.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-holds.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
Did you see the White House Press briefing today. :) Gibb was on the defence big time. What Emanuel and Gibbs were saying over the last two days according to Gibbs it was to be ignored and the press was to listen to what Obama is now saying.

Why have a Press Secretary and a Chief of Staff in front of the press if two days later the press is to ignore what they have said and are to get the information straight from Obama? :?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"“reflected us losing our moral bearings"

This statement comes from the man who voted for infanticide - and then lied about it. Goooooood Gawwwwwwd.

Have you libs seen enough yet? Can we call this experiment over?
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture.

The Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods “reflected us losing our moral bearings.” The president said that he did not think it was “appropriate” to prosecute those CIA officers who “carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House.”

But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that “with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.”

Just yesterday, asked by a reporter as to why the administration was not seeking to “hold accountable” Bush administration lawyers who may have “twisted the law,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “the president is focused on looking forward, that’s why.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-holds.html

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002
In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, December 9, 2007;

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

So will Pelosi and the rest of the committee that not just approved but encouraged waterboarding be on the list of those who will be prosecuted under Obama and Holders little witch hunt? :?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture. …"

The Bush people covered all the bases and asked all the right people when formulating their interrogation plans. They did everything right. Obama knows this. This isn't a real threat of going after those people, this is a threat for others not to go against the Obama regime in the future. This is in the same vein as trying to shut up opposition during the campaign. Obama doesn't believe in debating the opposition, be believes in silencing them.
 

Texan

Well-known member
This is a really dangerous precedent for an Administration to be setting. In the future, I suppose all members of a president's national security team will have to be wondering if the decisions they make to protect the country will be used against them for political gain by the next Administration.

I don't even want anybody in the Obama Administration to have to be worrying about criminal charges by future administrations for trying to protect this country. How can that possibly be helpful to the people that have to make those tough decisions?

Looks like it's easy for some people with short memories to overlook the mindset of this country after 9/11. I remember people being scared to death of the next attack. Apparently, others have forgotten that.

Like them or not, the people in the Bush Administration kept this country safe for 7 1/2 years. After 9/11, there's not many people that would have thought that was possible. Except for a few wackos, I really don't think the public will stand for any criminal charges being brought against anybody in the Bush Administration for doing what they thought was best to protect this country.

This whole incident with this flip-flop has made the Obama Administration look foolish. Once again.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You can look at this from many angles, all don't look good.

But the actions now are of a community organizer, with no real political or business experience.

The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard.

Obama seems to think he can have it both ways -- authorizing an unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods and at the same time galvanizing a clandestine service whose best days, he told them Monday, are "yet to come." Life doesn't work that way -- even for charismatic politicians. Disclosure of the torture memos may have been necessary, as part of an overdue campaign to change America's image in the world. But nobody should pretend that the disclosures weren't costly to CIA morale and effectiveness.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/22/slow_roll_time_at_langley_96098.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
What I would like to know is why is Obama doing this? He has to know that he is putting a rope around the necks of his own policy makers. Any policy his administration makes is open to investigation and possible prosecution by future administrations now that Holder has announced he will move forward on these investigations. :?

Obama's own actions on this should prove to everyone that he will not be making any hard decision to protect anyone for fear that the next Administration will prosecute him. :x

Could it be that

Obama is using this to distract attention from his own Administration? While the press and public are distracted by this witch hunt he will be pushing his agenda as fast as humanly possible through the Congess.
The comment "never waste a crisis" comes to mind. :wink:

If it is this then

Can we now expect every time he thinks he need to distract attention, he will clear another TOP SECRET CIA or Defence document to be released to the public?
If you can't get everything done extend the length of the crisis. :wink:

Or is he using this to appease his left wingnut supporters so he will have their support when he moves forward on some of the more troubling portions of his agenda? Here is where the comment "Time to pay the piper" comes to mind. :wink:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
This sounds like something that would happen in Kenya or Cambodia or some place like that...take over and immediately either murder or imprison your predecesor.
 

Tam

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
This sounds like something that would happen in Kenya or Cambodia or some place like that...take over and immediately either murder or imprison your predecesor.


Obama disagreed with the War on Terrorism so he changed the name to Oversea Contingency Operation and deployed more soldiers. Same action just different name. :wink:

He disagree with Gitmo so he closes it but then OK'd holding detainees in the Middle East in a prison there. Same deal just different location :wink:

He disagreed with Bush's wiretapping but once in office he openned that door wider. Just more of the same thing for the same reason :wink:

He disagreed with the Bush "spending" so now that he has tripled down he calls it "investing" in the future. Spending is spending no matter what you call it. :wink:

So one has to wonder what Obama will be calling torture when he is trying to defend himself when the next administration is investigating him. :wink:
 
Top