The vile, torture loving French and Lynne Cheney

Remove all ads!

​

From Glenn Greenwald:

Juan Cole is probably correct when he says that

Indeed why?

I do not think that there is no segment among the R's that to themselves admits that torture is a bad thing - they just don't dare say it loud, or don't find it expedient to do so. Needless to say, that is a sorry excuse, and whatever they may or may not think, they don't stand out. Even John McCain, who after all has first hand experience on the subject, is mute on the subject.

I have already said, and it is still my view, that people like Cheney and Kristol have in regard to torture hijacked the R's as a 'junta party' with the primary intent of preventing prosecution for any of the crimes Bush committed, in particular torture. For the time being torture in the Republican party has thus become another 'litmus test', much like the question on where candidates stand on Roe vs. Wade.

PS: I'm pressed for time, thus the heavy quoting.

 

Of course it's only the republicans that approve of torture -- we all know that Obama and the democratic party have taken the same stance as McCain on the subject.

 

Obama and McCain do have pretty similar views on torture - they are both against it. While Ragusa is correct insofar as saying McCain largely stays silent on the issue, there were times during the 2008 presidential campaign where he was pressed for an answer, and he responded in a way you'd expect someone who was previously tortured himself to respond - that it was unacceptable.

Ragusa's larger point - and one that seems hard to argue against - is that under the Bush administration torture was not considered unaccpetable. In fact, it appears that it became institutionalized.

The only place where I think Ragusa goes too far is when he applies this thought pattern to all Republicans. I imagine a lot Republians are like McCain - they may not speak out against torture because it happened when the sitting president from thier own party was in power. However, many of them probably think it was not acceptable, and should not have been done. It's a lot easier to criticize something in the other party that you disagree with than something in your own party that you disagree with.

 

First of all, McCain has always spoken out against torture -- in any conversation where it is brought up. He doesn't actively campaign against torture, but then I never heard of many politicians (on either side of the aisle) who do.

The fact remains that very few politicians from either side of the aisle spoke out against the methods used even when both parties were briefed. The democrats have made waves that they were never informed when those claims are not substanciated by the records of those present during debriefs. The only time politicians went public was after the pictures of obvious Geneva Convention violations became public -- which is a bit late.

As a country we have always maintained ourselves in a grey area on torture. When Obama signed his anti-torture order, it really wasn't anything new -- those policies had already been in place and he vacated Executive Order 13440 (which also prohibited torture but put al Qaeda, the Taliban and their allies in a new category of 'unlawful enemy combatants'). We have specific laws against torture yet we seem to allow the CIA (in particular) to operate in a gray area where torture is subjective. It's been this way for a very long time and not just during Bush's administration.

I was mainly commenting on the 'all republicans' as well, but I do not hold the democrats blameless either.

 

*Raises hand*
Hi, I'm a Republican (for now at least, we'll see in the future), and I'm against torture (for purely practical reasons). More to the point, I'm against breaking the law and would like to see Cheney&Co on trial, and probably convicted (innocent until proven guilty and all, but Cheney's pretty well done that himself).

That being said, though, this:

applies to me. I can make all the stir I want, but it won't make a difference.

 

I don't think that's what Ragusa was saying at all. He was saying that most Republicans were being forced to say they were for torture, even if they opposed it, because Liz and her daddy have been running the circuit of conservative talk shows demanding it. Notice, that McCain is having to prove his conservative credentials in his Senate race, because of the hard-liners like the Cheneys, on a variety of issues. There is no pressue on the Democrats to prove that they support torture, and in fact the reverse is the case. The bases in both parties seem to be demanding ideological purity, atm. The Republicans on issues like torture and who is defending the Gitmo detainees and the Democrats on the issue health care.

 

That may be, but Obama has had the power to come down hard on this since he was elected, and he hasn't. The Dems have had the power to at least make it a big public stir, and they haven't. That does sound a lot like McCain's position: quietly condemn them when cornered, but don't stir anything up.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28574408/

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_orders_gu.html

Most of the negative comments I could find regarding Obama and torture were of generally two types: Those who felt that Obama should have gone after Cheney and the torture lawyers, and from Republicans who criticize him for ending torture.

It's policy that matters. The "public stir" happened a year ago, and Cheneys' outrage against the Obama policy of ending torture should have been a big tip-off for you. You can get on CNN or FOX and rant and whine all you want , but in the end it's the executive orders and policy that counts.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- when a snake bites you, you can either go after the snake, try to kill it, and end up dying yourself, or you can treat the wound, survive, and move on. Obama could have bogged himself down in a fight that would divert resources from more pressing concerns, or he could have made an effort to end the torture and try to help America move forward. He took the high road, ended what was perceived by most of the world as a a reprehensible practice, and then went on to address the truly pressing concerns.

The guy may not be perfect, but he's doing a fine job, and I doubt there's anyone out there who could do a significantly better job. I can guaran - fricking -- TEE that Palin couldn't -- not on her best day and Obama's worst.

 

I'd probably kill the snake - but that's just my nature.

EDIT: Re T2B's post - Of course you torture it first. That goes without saying!

 

I would torture the snake first.

Edit: Re Aldeth's edit ... I thought only republicans would torture the snake first....

 

Chandos, I think you ended up agreeing with me, but I'm not sure. Yes, Obama has ended the use of torture. Yes, Obama has spoken against torture when directly asked. I said as much. What he hasn't done is prosecute those who conducted torture. He should have done that by now.

LKD makes a good point, but I honestly don't think the costs to Obama for arresting and charging at least some of the people would be that high. Arresting and charging Cheney may be, but even there I think it would be managable. I just see Obama having made a lot of promises and it seems like he's been so focused on Health Care he hasn't really stopped to do much else, and there are other things he could have done on his own without relying on Congress. Maybe I'm just too trusting in the system, I don't know.

 

Now there's something we can agree on. We've been a little light on the "change" since he came into office. However, I don't think that going after those who condoned the use of torture would be a good use of time. Prosecuting underling accompishes little, and the costs would be steep going after the big fish.

 

Your probably right Aldeth. Going after them during last year would of caused a huge stir and put an even bigger damper on the Healthcare debate. He was trying to get everyone on the same page, working together, going after the Reps former bigs would of only distanced the Reps he needed.

 

It appears you ended up agreeing with my post, the one above it? So you were only reinforcing my point for me then. Thanks.

 

... Umm, maybe. I'm not sure at this point, honestly.

 

The Republicans, whether deservedly or not, have a reputation of being petty and mean spirited. So do some Democrats. Obama has been trying to make himself look different from the "business as usual" politicians, and he likely felt that going after the former administration would hurt his credibility as a non-petty, "breath of fresh air" kind of moral Febreze.

Plus, it likely wouldn't have resulted in convictions anytime before the year 2020.

It ALSO would have been allowing the Republicans to dicate the ground on which he engaged them, and as most of the war theorists I have read have said, it is always more advantageous to be the one selecting the location of a battle.