View Single Post
Old 05-14-09, 10:02 AM   #5
Tchocky
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,874
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk View Post
It was hasty because it looks to me that possible repercussions were not weighed. Hang with me on this. During the election, Obama kept throwing out timelimes for Iraq withdrawal. After getting a briefing of what is really occurring in Iraq he changed his tune on the withdrawal timeline. He did not have the facts.
Seems fairly logical to me. Would you prefer that he stuck to the first timeline (which was always subject to change due to new information if he took office), no matter what information was received?
Quote:
Gitmo, yes, just close it down without a plan. Repercussions on this hasty decision.
It wasn't a hasty decision, it was common knowledge during the campaign.
Quote:
No consideration on what the repercussions of this decision would create.
What are these repercussions?
Quote:
Let show memo's on torture...it all looks to be nothing but the "Star Chamber" of Republicans involved anyway, but wait, it seems that some of Obama staunchest supportors knew about these tortures and did nothing.
Read the article by the Senate Intelligence Committee counsel, their options were very limited.

Let's assume that Pelosi knew about and fully supported torture - that's no reason not to investigate torture, who ordered it and who enabled it. Because it's wrong and illegal, not because it's totally confined to Republicans.

Quote:
Did Obama take into account that if these memos did go out how would the world view the US? As we see here in this thread, the US is not seen in a good light. It would seem it put the US a few steps back in the hole in the world view of the US. Again, repercussions not considered.
You're wrong here. I'm sure that the effect on America's image was considered.
I think it puts the US in a better light, coming clean about what has been happening, instead of keeping things secret. Do you disagree?
Also, I think that how the world views America is, in this case, a less that critical factor.
If you torture people, you should expect to be seen as torturers.
Obama has banned these practices, that makes America look good. Being honest about what happened also makes America look good. Makes lots of sense to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003023.stm


Quote:
Ok, now this administration is looking to persecute some Bush official in this matter. This administration might want to pick up Pelosi as well and let the proceedings begin.
What should Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted for here? Knowing about it and keeping it secret, as is the procedure for these situations?
Quote:
Really, this is a political ploy at best and it does not seem to paint anyone in a favorable light.
How is it a political ploy? I suppose in the interests of equality they should prosecute one Democrat for every Republican?

You seem to be overly concerned with image here.
Frankly, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how it makes people look. At least not to me.
I think it's worth finding out if government officials broke the law. If it makes people look bad, so be it.

Quote:
In short, getting the facts, looking at the possible outcomes of releasing these memos and pictures were not weighed. Also, if such a thing did happen and not to the general publics knowledge...what else are the idiots in Washington doing that no one is aware of? Perhaps this will generate a snowball effect of other wrong doings?

EDIT: And another thing...this 'enhanced techique' Call it what it is...torture. This friggin play on words is stupid. It is as bad as 'What is 'is'?..Bill Clinton
Yeah, agreed.

I think the same applies to differtiating between forms of torture that produce visible scars, and those that don't.


EDIT - mookiemookie - I really lose hope when I hear Obama using the same reasons as Bush for doing the same things. Bloody stupid.

EDIT 2 - Just saw this from Colin Powell's Chief of Staff

Quote:
Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Last edited by Tchocky; 05-14-09 at 10:15 AM.
Tchocky is offline   Reply With Quote