Quote of the Day
By John Amato Thursday May 07, 2009 5:45amDan Froomkin writes an impressive piece that exposes the torturers and their media enablers who covered up and participated in the torture policy of the Bush White House that is a must-read. It's called: "Complicity -- and Accountability -- on Torture," and he ends it on some wise words from Deepak Chopra: (correction)
"The more the right wing tries to justify the torture policy, the worse they look. Using national security to justify torture is just a bald-faced attempt to hide the truth. What really went on was simple. The Bush administration felt that Al-Qaida could not be defeated while still preserving what America stands for."
Login or Register to post comments.
Either that or they were just looking for an excuse to do horrible things to human beings.
before "human beings." Otherwise you take them out of context.
comes to getting themselves in trouble.
Pure, plain and simple.
The "spreading democracy" line? Total BS from the get-go. "Being greeted as liberators"? As tragic as it's comical.
They're all thieves and murderers. Hang 'em high, every last one. Especially Cheney, one of the most wicked men ever to crawl upon the earth.
follow the money!
"they hate us for our freedom" what better way to "show them" than to abandon that freedom along with your ideals?
...but not convincing to those "true believers" (ie: Malkinites, Dittoheads, etc).
...what valuable "ticking timebomb" time sensitive information KSM still had to justify the use of torture by the 182nd time he was waterboarded.
taste like liquid canine waste? What a terrorist coup. They hate us for our soda (PoP).
... is assuming KSM and others had useful intel to begin with. (As opposed to the sensible conclusion of any remaining leadership changing their plans, safehouse locations, and communications protocols to avoid being compromised by KSM's capture/interrogation.)
But once you become convinced that they do, then you will do anything to get that intel. It's a classic case of faulty logic - if the basic premise is flawed, then all that follows is equally flawed.
I think you are missing the real fallacy; that circumstance dictates morality. Now moral relativism is well and good, so long as it is consistently reasoned. Arguing that torture is barbarous when they do it, but ok when we do it is completely devoid of any moral or logical consistency.
If the basic premise is flawed, then all that follows is equally flawed.
There were numerous valid reasons to not go down this road. Instead, they sought a 'legal defense' - implying they knew full well they were in violation of existing law and international treaty. They shopped the 'moral clarity' nonsense around the media, and no one called them out on this.
..."Why do you want our soldiers to die?"
Failing to prosecute those who tortured tells the world that "we may still want to use it in the future", which means enemy soldiers are more likely to fight to the death, thus extending battles, costing more American lives.
"Why do you want more soldiers to die, President Obama?"
Unless you can produce evidence that the Obama Administration is torturing people, you've got the wrong guy. And the jury's still out on whether Obama is protecting the previous Administration through complicity.
1. unless Obama punishes the torturers, i.e. he turns a blind eye and allows torturers to go free, then he's also culpable and it tells the world we're not serious about it.
2. aside from our soldiers being killed by over zealous enemies who don't want to get captured, a far more realistic concern is that by not punishing the torturers, thus further condoning it, we greatly increase the risk that our soldiers will be tortured if captured. You know, the whole thing the Geneva Convention was supposed to stop.
The way our system works, I think Obama is blameless so long as he does not interfere with an investigation, as it is not his responsibility to be the public prosecutor. Although he is walking a fine line by lending political cover for the Justice department not to pursue potential violations of the law.
But this rush to lynch Obama for the acts of Bush and his crime partners while not allowing the process to take place is simply misdirected frustration.
Just a statement of fact. If as president he not only does not encourages investigations into allegations of torture, but seems to discourage it, then not only is he culpable to a degree but it would also be incorrect to say that torture is closed chapter in our history that no one needs to worry about anymore.
Just because he doesn't encourage investigations, does not mean he condones torture. I think if he squelches an investigation, or pardons those who are convicted of a crime, then he is fully culpable, but until then, he is complicit at best. And even that is a bit of a stretch.
The way I see it, as president, anything less than a vigorous condemnation of torture AND a calling for all those involved to be punished to the full extent of the law is pitiful and shameful and I think makes him morally complicit.
I can respect that view. In a perfect world the president would not have to equivocate on these issues for political reasons, but in this world sometimes you can't avoid it.
Even moral complicity, especially by the pres can lead to much worse treatment for our soldiers in the future.
The funny thing is I think the president could be a lot more vocal and angry about this pretty safely since it would require a whole lot of backbone from a whole lot of people throughout the entire system in order for a single important figure to see the inside of a jail and I think we all know that's not gonna happen.
After reading the whole thread's comments, I agree with FilthyHarry the most.
You are now a nation of selective law enforcement.
Either you live with that, or you 'act up', but them's the facts.
America can and will do whatever it takes to increase profits, and that's how selective law enforcement will be considered, henceforth. It's always been about the money. Can you see that? Being "noble America" has always justified it.
Don't believe me? Just watch. Just look at what has transpired since 2000.
The new 'vogue' is what benefits 'the many', not adherence to the law. These criteria are, and will be, decided by the rich and the powers that be, not any notion of 'justice'.
[edit, PS I will suggest that NATO and G7 nations are complicit. We have set ourselves atop the food chain by force, economically and militarilly. America is the GANG leader, so you get most of the flack.]
.."Ha-ha, stupid Americans! You say you're a nation of laws but you are not! You're leaders commit crimes and no one held accountable! You are jokes!" OBL
He may not be saying it but he's thinking it! Bet on it!
You've covered your ass. Leave the PDB on the table. Now let me get back to The Hungry Caterpillar and this plate of yummy pretzels.
Any argument about torture being justified is a tacit admission that torture took place. Admission of a crime. If our MSM had any brains or spine they would follow up every single attempt to justify torture with: "So you're admitting torture took place?"
I never gave authorization for or called for or approved of torture, and have been protesting in horror its practice by the Bush administration for as many years as we've known about it. So explain to me how this makes me "the real culprit".
What a desperate ploy to try to avoid placing the blame and responsibility and accountability squarely where they belong, Mr. Kinsley. Nobody's buying THAT!
I don' t want to prosecute a few former government employees I want every single last one locked away for life and stripped of any wealth they may possess. From the top to the bottom, President down to the guy that mopped up the blood. Not enough prison space, empty out the pot smokers that wouldn't hurt a fly and replace them with these thugs. Do you want your daughter unknowingly to date one of these goons?
same as it ever was....
And the world wakes screaming.
Bet a dime to a dollar there were live feeds to the White House from the bowels of the torture chambers and dick, george and condi were joy stick torturing.
The tapes would reveal their voices claiming that drowning less than a minute is for chumps. And you know you can imagine hearing the snide, sick Carla Ray Tucker snicker.
Karl's IT guy left a copy somewhere on a zip drive so I say
Roll the tapes
chainey and dumbsfeld had special offices in the pentagon. the took the feed in those offices.
I'd bank on that live feed, made into collectable CD's available online for only...............$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Cheney had no way to pay sock-puppet off except for torture and killings, fed to the sock-puppet from all around the world. GAG!
Kudos to Froomkin for pointing out the obvious, but what good does it do us in getting torture investigated without someone claiming it is a partisan witch hunt?
... the people complaining about it being a 'partisan witch hunt' are the same people who are supporting torture.
This isn't particle physics (i.e., the cat is both alive and dead as long as we don't open the box) - it's a simple question of established law, and the wilful intent to break that law by the Bush Administration.
Be that as it may, they have enough voice to make the whole thing into a farce. We need a way to convince people that investigations will reach independent conclusions supported by the evidence. Right now, the public spectacle and prejudging is making it difficult to argue for investigations. From what we know, the previous administration sought legal advice on what would constitute violations of the law in regards to interrogation, and that this advice led to the water boarding of at least two individuals (a seemingly apparent violation of law). Until we investigate how the these events are connected and can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that specific individuals committed crimes, it does us no good to paint the entire Bush administration with a broad brush as torturers and actually hampers our abilities to convince enough people that investigations would be conducted responsibly.
... if it wasn't you, someone else here on C&L.
I say we have the evidence in the executive order, signed by President Bush, and the memos authored by Bybee, Yoo, and Bradbury, the public statements made by Dick Cheney and other apologists.
The law is clear.
If, truly, nothing wrong was done, then such will be the finding of a court.
Your post gives the impression that the quote is from Froomkin. It isn't. It's from Deepak Chopra's article in the San Fransisco Chronicle. It's a good quote, but give the proper attribution.
"The Bush administration felt that Al-Qaida could not be defeated while still preserving what America
standsstood for."I get it now!! THAT'S why we went after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda. And to think, all along I thought it was ONLY because of oil.....silly me.
... therefore, you have no soul to which meditation would provide a benefit.
...and traitors, the whole lot.
not let this go. All he has to is look in the past and HE will see what happnes when the assholes ran the country, committed crimes ang got away with them. they get right back in goverment and do it again. The bush crime cartell put them self above the law. take that dipshit scooter liby. Not one day in jail. Shit there putting kids in prison for having 2 joints!!! and Liby walks. One only has to look at WHO goes to prison and who gets off. There is one law for them and another one for the people.
bush left this country in a shithole and he is walking away. the world is watching this. We will never get over this if the war criminals walk from what they did.
Must-see video companion piece for this Froomkin column was the Richard Haass appearance yesterday on Hardball. Really caught my attention and I highly recommend.
As appalling as what was done in our name--Shock and Awe, torture--there's also what was un-done.
this asshole is saying, he is lying, there were lots of people who did not want a war with iraq. dick picking what he wanted in the intell that favored HIS war, NOT letting intell out that did not favor the war.Dick Turnning out a CIA agent because her husband did a pice on the LIE bush told the WORLD.the press, TV, radio, did not show the protests on this war. they were ALL for it. Now after this shithole has over 4000 dead,11 billion( more like 15 to 18 billion) a month cost to the US taxpayers, they come out and say, I was not for this war. F*#K off. Where were YOU be for this war. You could come out on TV,Newspapers, Radio and tole the people of America what was going on, but you did not. Look what happen to the Dixi Chicks when they came out against bushs war. they were Trashed. Look at the shit that diugie rush,handie,beck and all the other assholes say about Obama. If you were not for bushs war, YOU were Anti-American.
and mathews, he is a two faced jerk. He was for the war big time. now he says this was just a lie.F him.
is a politician. ostensibly, a pretty good one. patience grasshopper.
what Bush would have read next if he had he been able to finish "The Hungry Caterpillar" as part of his bet with Karl Rove?
"The more the right wing tries to justify the torture policy, the worse they look. Using national security to justify torture is just a bald-faced attempt to hide the truth. What really went on was simple. The Bush administration felt that Al-Qaida could not be defeated while still preserving what America stands for."
I'm surprised you think this is a good quote john
they didn't want to defeat al qaeda, if they did they would have stayed in afghanistan
the torture program was to create unrest and give them a reason to never leave
the torture program was originally conceived cause they were getting desperate to get info that Iraq/Saddam was linked to Al-Queda/9-11.
How's that for insane. Let's torture people to generate false evidence to back up our lies we used to start an illegal war!
the torture program was originally conceived cause they were getting desperate to get info that Iraq/Saddam was linked to Al-Queda/9-11.
not quite
they were desperate to make believe they could link al qaeda with iraq, everyone knew there was no link, the cia informed them at every corner there is no link so they had to manufacture something
they're famous for manufacturing lies and create unrest, cheney/rumsfeld did it to undermine nixon's detante, read about it here
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0213-28.htm
and then be amazed to find that was printed BEFORE we went into Iraq on his lies
damned!
"the torture program was to create unrest and give them a reason to never leave". this is how i have looked at this for some time. in my opinion it was a strategy to stir the opposition. it also served to help
justify/rationalize the war(s) in the states.
and go buy a new car! Treat the kids to a hot dog and pop! Star Trek! . . action for the whole family! Watch Sports!
if arresting and prosecuting these guys for torture is important to you my suggestion is put together a force of people, go to D.C. with signs saying arrest and prosecute and march outside the White House or Attorney General Building with all your heartfelt energy and do not quit until your desire is fulfilled.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclinton...
signed by:
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
if you look where these assholes get there money from, its all from the people who make war weapons.
Just look at the names who signed the letter. Donald Rumsfeld? Richard Perle? Paul Wolfowitz? James Woolsey? William Kristol? Elliot Abrams?
Hmmmm...wonder where they all ended up working after the neo-con Bush coup 2000.
you forgot cheney, also a signotory to the pnac
The largest funeral home service in the world
Speaking of Darth
Scott Ritter: Dick Cheney's Fantasy World
The Guardian: Darth Vader strikes back
This on SCI funeral services sounds like them to
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/deadpeop...
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Al Qaeda didn't attack in the US after 9-11: they didn't need to. BushCo destroyed America for them.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Al Qaeda didn't attack in the US after 9-11: they didn't need to. BushCo destroyed America for them.
I have said any number of times, if this were a novel it would be dismissed as too far fetched, that the american public would allow a person making decisions at every turn to harm our nation and her future to remain in office
... the corrupt authorities get theirs. (For example, 'The Sum of All Fears,' and 'Clear and Present Danger' by Tom Clancy.)
The quote in your post is Froomkin quoting Deepak Chopra.
keep in mind that Al Qaeda (or at least the jihadists who eventually called themselves by this name) was essentially encouraged (if not created) and paid for by the US (CIA) during the 1980's in Afghanistan. You may remember those tapes of Zbig Brerezinski talking with Osama bin Laden, planning with him how the US would be helping OBL and his freedom fighters save the Afghanis from those mean old Russians who had 'invaded' their country.
There is nothing that has happened in US foreign policy over the last number of decades that has happened by accident or as a response to something perpetrated by a rag-tag group of disgruntled 'Islamofascists' in the middle east. Our plan has always been to control the energy resources of the area.....Period!
The PNAC defense strategy for the 21st century makes that entirely clear - and also spells out the need for invading Iraq (to build secure, forward military bases from which to continue our quest for resource control) as well as the "desire" for a New Pearl Harbor
(9/11) in order to create fear and solidify support for these nefarious adventures.
The fact that Cheney, Bush, Kristol, Perle, and all of these PNAC creeps would enable, encourage and enjoy the torture of human beings
for their own gratification is not that hard to understand.
Froomkin has been consistently superb in covering torture and other abuses.
Login or Register to post comments.