Obama's intel team: 'The United States does not torture'
By David Neiwert Friday Jan 09, 2009 12:30pm
All the discussion has been about Obama's selection of Leon Panetta and what it means for the CIA, but the most significant part of today's announcement was the statement that leads off this video:
The United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. That we will uphold our highest values and ideals.
Meanwhile, all the fussing about how folks in the CIA feel about Panetta's imminent appointment is put in perspective, I think, by Melvin Goodman of the Center for International Policy, himself an intel veteran:
DeYoung and Warrick disingenuously repeated the assertion of one senior CIA officer that the “agency was neither consulted nor informed” about the Panetta nomination. More balderdash! The CIA has never been consulted about the nomination of a CIA director nor should it. It is unlikely that Foreign Service Officers were asked to vet the selection of Senator Hillary Clinton as secretary of state or that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked if they would support the nomination of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense in 2001. Civil servants have no role to play in the selection of senior officials of the government, and their professionalism requires support for their leadership, regardless of political beliefs. We certainly expect U.S. military officers, who are overwhelmingly members of the Republican Party, to support the national security policies of Democratic administrations. We should assume that CIA officers will do the same.
His piece is really about how the media -- and the Washington Post in particular -- are in fact being played by CIA operatives in their reportage on this.
Login or Register to post comments.
Well..now...that's change.
of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950, here.
These include:
Crimes against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity
I carries nothing if he does not acknowledge that it has been done recently and pursue those that did it.
Barak stating this is acknowledging the US has engaged in torture. Otherwise why make the statement?
He should have said "From now on, the United States does not torture" or "The United States will not torture again." He was probably trying to express intent (like telling a child "We do NOT spill food on the floor!"), but it came out sounding like a statement of fact. At least, I'm hoping that's the case-- sometimes the US government are too wary to to admit error and express regret. It would be nice to see Obama, once he is President, give a speech where he apologizes to the world on behalf of the United States.
... so maybe Panetta's a good start.
A special prosecutor would be a much better start.
NOW!!
Maybe some in the CIA are getting a little nervous right about now over something they did when the United States did torture. Maybe they are the ones fighting against Panetta.
have you seen the view?
Then they're admitting they're not very good at gathering intelligence.
Ha!
Good point!
The US has 11 more days of torture left.
Accountability. If we're re-emphasizing our stance, it means we understand we did something wrong.
And that means somebody gots to pay.
..an end to the torture of the American public and stop
Sarah Palin from speaking. The old Robert Klein routine about when someone commits murder they go to jail and are subjected to non-stop Peg Bracken commercials: "Hi, I'm Peg Bracken and I hate to cook!" (done in a nasal, growly falsetto voice, hey, my grandma had falsetto teeth!). Exchange palin for bracken!
sorry, slow work day.
what about adm blair (see, east timor)? blair seems more than willing to look the other way as torture is conducted.
obama: lose this thug
"In 1999, in the midst of massacres of East Timor civilians and churches, Admiral Blair gave support to the perpetrators, the armed forces of Indonesia.
Two days after a massacre at Liquica that left flesh hanging from the church walls, Blair contacted the Indonesian commander, offered him US aid, and according to classified US cables, failed to tell him to stop the attacks."
http://www.counterpunch.org/nairn01072009.html
Then how come that Coultergeist has been all over the airwaves? Huh Obama? Huh? Is that not some perverse torture?
Yes it is, just like the palin videos
He didn't literally mean that the U.S. hasn't tortured anyone. On the contrary, it was a forward-looking moral statement meaning that the U.S. must not torture, that it goes against everything we and our Constitution stand for, and it was a tacit admission that of course the U.S. under Bush has been torturing people. Otherwise, there would have been no need to make the statement at all. I certainly "got" what Obama was saying.
That's the way I understood it too.
well, the previous administration admitted to torturing, but we are going to go back to that "we don't torture" routine, and hide it like before.
Have the Bushies actually used the word 'torture'?
Let's not play the 'we never said imminent, you did' game. (I'm still pissed that no one in the media had the gumption to say, "If that's not what you meant, why didn't you correct us?")
The rest of the world knows it. We are the last to fess up.
Media Concepts
Then why in the world did the lead statement not state what you wrote, which is, as you correctly note, "that the U.S. must not torture." To claim that the U.S. does not torture is to deny that that is exactly what the less than benevolent United States is doing as well as engaging in extraordinary rendition. To not state that this country condones torture is not to acknowledge that the U.S. is, again, doing exactly that. Obama's team should say what it means.
Obama has a distinct speaking style. Usually it's both eloquent and precise. This time, it was an unfortunate way of saying something in which, though its meaning was clear to me, people nevertheless had to read between the lines, and some people will take the words literally and thus misinterpret the meaning.
Stating what the USA does not do is equivalent to stating past, present and future wrapped into one concept... America does not torture.
Facts undermine that alternate reality echoed by Bush and Barrack, too.
NO?
How is repeating the denials of the past Administration, change?
No, sorry Barrack. America has engaged in the despicable act of torture. In fact, the DOJ has attempted to make it legal.
Q U E S T I O N:
Since when has TORTURE become legal that we can deny it's use and implications?
Next time one of these clowns goes on TV and says the CIA was not consulted about Panetta, just ask them who, specifically, in the CIA was consulted about Bush's nomination of Porter Goss to head the CIA, and what opinions they gave.
.
It's not TORTURE when the USA does it.
.
(/snark)
.
Q U E S T I O N:
What's the difference between a terrorist and a madman?
A terrorist threatens to crush you son's testicles and a madman gets his DOJ to make it sound legal.
.
I think you got those two backwards.
... The terms are interchangable, NO?
Blackwater has also been heavily involved in the torture of innocents with absolutely no consequences. Is Obama going to detach them from the security contractor list?
Obama's Blackwater Problem
Aren't there three of four blackwater guys being held in custody now for killing people in Iraq?
Maybe we should let the Iraqis deal with them.
for any deed done to an Iraqi in Iraq.
All I've read is that there is an investigation triggered by a lawsuit filed in the US by some Iraqi relatives of those 17 killed and some who were injured in the Blackwater Baghdad attack. You can be sure that Blackwater's defense team will argue that, under the 2004 law promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the Blackwater contractors cannot be held accountable. I believe those who brought the lawsuit are using American war-crimes statutes as their basis. The Plaintiffs must be Americans if they have standing to bring the lawsuit to American courts.
I really wish there were some way to directly find GW accountable for those deaths AND the torture that Blackwater and other "security" contractors committed.
If Blackwater is dibanded and forced to go out of business, these people will be integrated into the law enforcement in our cities and counties.
Is that Erik Prince is a born-again Rapture-ready nutcase.
We'll be seeing these thugs again as long as the 'America is a Christian Nation' nonsense continues.
Yeah, that is a pretty grim scenario.
I'd rather see them go into [dangerous] "special operations" jobs myself -- they'd probably like that better than becoming law enforcement officers, particularly because of the pay and probable boredom after their killing sprees. Our domestic population has already seen quite enough of Blackwater operations in New Orleans after Katrina.
Blackwater will be available to assist the U.S. Military forces stationed at Fort Benning after that national emergency where they're all called to do domestic police work.
Bush nullified Posse Comitatus with a signing statement, and the government started stationing these troops here since October 1st. They're here for "crowd control" if needed. Started with 4,000, going up to 20,000 over the next year or so. Why would we need that when we have a National Guard, FEMA, local police and fire? Why would we need military to use against our people, because that's what controlling them would be?
Are you in the NO area? Is that where these troops are amassig? Any word on why so many?
Anney
Great comment which belies Obama's claim that, by sanctioning rogue groups like Blackwater, Obama is supposed to represent change. Much more change like this and Obama should be labeled More of the Same. Perhaps Obama may wish to ask the Iraqis if they would feel much hope [to use a favorite Obama term] when they see their country still occupied by civilian mercenary troops and American soldiers.
That's why I question Obama's commitment to "no more torture". I'd assume he'd put civilian murders in the same category since both were done by the same security contractors.
If he's serious about his commitment, I'm afraid he'll leave them in place trusting they'll straighten up, and they'll commit other crimes just as heinous.
What I don't understand is why Obama would want to let wrongdoers get off scott-free and continue operations.
But, it appears from the segment posted that he doesn't think there's any US law under which they could be prosecuted. Others apparently believe differently.
short of insubordinate to Clinton. Sufficiently that, had it been me, they'd have been fucking cashiered.
so, this assertion: "We certainly expect U.S. military officers, who are overwhelmingly members of the Republican Party, to support the national security policies of Democratic administrations." is pure codswallop...
.
Torture Prosecutor Tops 70,000 Questions for Obama on Change.Gov
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_chang...
... Keep 'em coming people!
.
If so, then mebbe somebody can explain to me why are they bringing John Brennan, the CIA torture guy who was blocked from running the agency, into the WhiteHouse by the back door for a job that doesn't need Senate Confirmation--and a broad vetting of his credentials and experience?
Oh, yeah, Change, I remember...
status quObama.
Blago is about to speak live on tv
He just started. Everyone take a shot each time Blago says the word "taint".
Woa. What Blago is doing right now is incredible. Parading sick families saying his impeachment will imperil them and other sick families. Putting lives at stake.
Re asserts his criminal innocence. (no mention of ethical wrongdoing)
yes it does.
Dear Barrack,
George asserted as much already.
I swear I hear an echo...
Biden hasn't been overheard laughing about a little dunk in the water.
not to protect the feelings of its employees.
Obama dropped the ball. He should have said:
Q U E S T I O N:
If I say that Max-1 does not lie, then how does that eviscerate the lie I told yesterday?
Our Government suffers from major denial!
THIS is how you deal with terrorists!
http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/0,4644,6232...
Drop money on them.
Now Obama has made it clear the US doesn't Torture the door is open for CIA and all involved in the illegal act of torture to be prosecuted overseas. Yes Rummy and his band of criminals will now have their day in Court. Cheney, Rummy, Connie and others can be Pardon for crimes in the USA but not for International Law. I look forward to the international criminal cases to come.
This is damned near verbatim of what Dubya said. It's almost, hmm, as if they both got this line from the same place.
Check this out:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-j...
This has been US policy for a long long time.
"The US doesn't torture" is the canned response given when asked about it.
Blair is a very Bad pick by a so-called Progressive.
Blair should be the last choice for this position.
for more Go to DemocracyNow.org
"The United States does not torture. We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. That we will uphold our highest values and ideals."
Someone explain how that statement is at all different than all the statements we've heard from the outgoing administration?
Maybe if he had said:
"Enhanced interrogation practices will end"
or
"We will return to the full adherence and respect for the Geneva Conventions"
Now that would have been some change.
Words matter.
they won't admit it is happening.
Yeah, that's what Bush and Cheney say.
Obama can prove what he means with a review of the crimes followed by a war tribunal and maybe shipping people off to the hague.
well maby the pentagon can show the pictures that were shown to the house and senate , you remember the pics that were to horrible to show the public , the pics that showed abugrab prisoners women with children being raped by thoes filty assholes that wanted information so bad they forced mothers to watch while thier children were molested , but somehow i dont think even thoes torture pics would make a difference obummers in the war corporations stable!
Torture coming from a super power looks real bad.
you know - the weak thing, the immoral thing to do...
It is real bad - someone please tell the republicans, this isn't hollywood, or take them off the stage.
Login or Register to post comments.