2012 presidential debates

[SR4]

what dleet said, i won't split ideological hairs, but "Socialist" Hungary was an authoritarian puppet state, who had a centralized economy BUT it was completely dictated by a foreign power on every single matter...if you have absolutely no say in your economic affairs, how the fuck can you claim to represent ANY ideology other than imperialism/neo-colonialism? Can you consider that falling within the definition of socialism?

 

 

Maybe, if you considered Japan in the late 40s, South Korea up to the 80s, the Phillippines in the 1900s, and Cuba around the same time as democratic republics.

 

Like dleet said, the closest thing we have in a real govt. representing an independent socialist model is the hybrid govts. of Wester/Central/Northern Europe.

 

again, sorry to sound like an ass, but it really gets in my craw this constantly spewed mantra that the Soviet Union was communist. Maybe in one or two Siberian villages for about three months of the Civil War, after that, Communism has very little to do with anything that happened in that country, other than its name being conveniently used by the ruling cadres for agitprop.

[Guest Frankie5fingers]

oh, i totally understand about the communism thing. real Marxist communism has not actually been implemented anywhere in the world. ever. only varying degrees of extreme Socialism. thats western ignorance for ya, just straight up saying theyre communist. it so much easier to be stupid then to actually know what youre talking about.

and the hungry thing, yeah you make a point. i didn't really know what you were saying before. yeah the people had no say at all about there government and economy is based on the people not the government. so in reality, Hungry wasnt a red state but still labeled one.

[J3FF3R00]

I'm voting for Obama.

I genuinely like him and his policies. I always have.

Would I like it of our country was less geared to the strict support of a two party system? Of course I would.

Unfortunately, the system is so fucked up that currently, if you vote for a third party candidate, the math of your decision will most likely favor the candidate you would least like to see in office.

At the end of the day, I still think he's done a good job. As good a job as anyone could do in his position, especially considering what he inherited from GWB.

Would I like if his policies were even more liberal? Yes. If they were, however, I understand, as I'm sure he does, that he wouldn't stand a chance of getting re-elected and/or passing his agenda through the legislative and judicial branches of government (congress & supreme court).

 

[awepittance]

i dont think it's unreasonable to expect him to at least roll back the George W bush era unconstitutional changes in our law to be used in the war on terror. To me thats not liberal, its sane. I can see where you're coming from, but remeber that unless Obama does (if he gets another 4 years) roll back the patriot act, the NDAA, gitmo and things of that nature. The next republican to take office sure as hell won't roll them back. So that could potentially mean 16 or 24 total years (8 for GW, 4 or 8 for Obama, and 4 or 8 for the next republican or dem) of post 9/11 erosion of our right protective laws, and if this happens the chances of them being rolled back by anyone, republican or democrat are extremely slim. Having this kind of continuity in what was considered insane radical and sociopathic under George W, now makes those policies normal and just business as usual which to me is the biggest tragedy of all. Even if Obama made gay marriage a federal mandate overnight, it still wouldn't even come close to matching the importance of rolling back Bush era 'law'.

 

hey compson, i think you're a good guy too please don't duck out of the thread because of something Ian C said. I wanted to followup to what you said earlier, what forum (links if possible) did they remove a post of Breaking the Set on?

[joshuatxuk]

That reality sucks. But I also will gladly vote for Obama over Romney b/c the latter in office means potential social conservative laws being passed instead of vetoed, more conservative judicial appointments, more cuts to everything but defense spending, and a mess of deregulation, tax breaks for corporations, and absolute gutting of any environmental protection acts nationwide. That's enough to push me away from a sincere 3rd party vote. I rather be in the company of my naive and annoying liberal friends who gushed over Obama in 2008 than anyone voting for Romney. You know in cartoons and sitcoms those bully characters that tease, provoke, and attack and then cry to their mom or nearby adult as soon as the protagonist fights back? That's a typical present-day Republican in a nutshell. Take away all the corruption, religious bullshit, hawkish attitudes, hypocritical and contradictory economic policies, and at their core the GOP simply like a bunch of whiny children who point the finger at Obama and cry foul.

[baph]

i dont think it's unreasonable to expect him to at least roll back the George W bush era unconstitutional changes in our law to be used in the war on terror. To me thats not liberal, its sane. I can see where you're coming from, but remeber that unless Obama does (if he gets another 4 years) roll back the patriot act, the NDAA, gitmo and things of that nature. The next republican to take office sure as hell won't roll them back. So that could potentially mean 16 or 24 total years (8 for GW, 4 or 8 for Obama, and 4 or 8 for the next republican or dem) of post 9/11 erosion of our right protective laws, and if this happens the chances of them being rolled back by anyone, republican or democrat are extremely slim. Having this kind of continuity in what was considered insane radical and sociopathic under George W, now makes those policies normal and just business as usual which to me is the biggest tragedy of all. Even if Obama made gay marriage a federal mandate overnight, it still wouldn't even come close to matching the importance of rolling back Bush era 'law'.

 

One thing that absolutely frustrates the hell out of me is that we're unlikely to see any insight, ever, into the way the military/intelligence apparatus, or the inertia and human error built into that system, informed Obama's continuation of GWB's policies on eg gitmo, the patriot act, the "war" on "terror," etc.

 

Kind of unpacking my stupid tommy carcetti joke, but how the hell can a putatively progressive candidate become compromised so thoroughly on those issues? It's frankly fucking bizarre given the groundswell of popular opposition to GWB policy in '08, and I just want a tiny degree of insight into what sort of institutional/structural/whatever issues are behind it.

 

If it's as simple and cynical as convenient administrative wagging the dog... jesus, we're truly fucked as a species.

 

Edit: of course, that's assuming GWB and Obama weren't ideologically aligned to begin with, which is maybe just an incredibly naive assumption

[joshuatxuk]

Kind of unpacking my stupid tommy carcetti joke, but how the hell can a putatively progressive candidate become compromised so thoroughly on those issues? It's frankly fucking bizarre given the groundswell of popular opposition to GWB policy in '08, and I just want a tiny degree of insight into what sort of institutional/structural/whatever issues are behind it.

 

Because enough liberals will say "we left Iraq and killed Bin Laden" or just kind of forgot we were still at war as soon as Obama won and the media went to covering the economy instead of the war on terror 24/7. Which is why the GOP claim of him being a weak military leader is immensely ironic. I don't recall Obama's anti-war rhetoric being that strong in 2008 honestly, he didn't have a legislative record to say one way or the other and Biden voted for the 2003 invasion. I think that's why some moderate Republicans voted for him and also why Ron Paul sparked so much interest from both the non-interventionist and anti-war voters.

[awepittance]

his anti war rhetoric was luke warm at best. He often referred to Iraq as the 'dumb war' implying that Afghanistan was the 'smart war' without directly mentioning it, he always planned and talked about doing a surge in afghanistan to 'take the fight to al qaeda' (absurd). However he did often make very strong statements in regard to the Bush administration's lawlessness. To me this was at least an indication that he strongly believes Bush had broke the law, but then reversed quickly after (as defined by the Treaty against torture signed into law by Reagan that makes it a crime to immunize torturers when blatant evidence exists that it happened). At this point Obama is legally just as complicit as the bush administration A) for having ample evidence the geneva convention and treaty against torture were blatantly breached B) for refusing to investigate 99% of the cases made light of during investigations that took place under Bush, Obama left open 2 investigations involving blatant murder by american authorities, one that died from exposure and another that appeared in the infamous photographs with sabrina harman after the CIA put a dead body back in the prison cell with a hood over the head to make it appear he was still alive (only to be discovered as dead by low level military personnel). The other cases were closed, and none of them were ever intended to investigate the people who instructed lower level military to torture, they were still designed to go after the lowest level officials.

 

Here are some quotes before his election win and i will contrast them with quotes after his win

 

 

- During obama's campaign he made it abundantly clear that he felt Bush and his cabinet broke the law,

and he is on record of saying so repeatedly

he used the word 'torture' to describe Bush's policies

to a cheering crowd he said

"the era of scooter libby justice… will be over"

"no more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient that is not who we are"

"We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary"

 

 

Senator obama opposed the confirmation of NSA chief Michael Hayden as CIA director.

Literally saying

"The architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight."

"send a clear signal to the administration that President Bush is not above the law"

 

 

possibility of prosecutions after election

Obama

"What i would want to do is to have my justice department and my attorney general immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be persued"

"i would want to find out directly from my attorney general having pursued having looked at what's out there right now - are there possibilities of genuine crimes?"

"if crimes have been committed they should be investigated if i found out that there were high officials who knowingly consciously broke the laws engaged in coverups of crimes with knowledge of forefront, then i think a basic pricipale

of our constitution is that nobody is above the law"

Erik Holder said of Bush 2008

had denounced the "disrespect of the rule of law"

"Our government authorized the use of torture approved of secret electronic surveillance of american citizens secretly detained american citizens without due process of law denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that both violate international law and the united states constitution"

"Patriotism of those responsible for these policies does nothing to mitigate the fact that these steps were wrong when they were initiated and they are wrong today"

"we owe the american people a reckoning"

"unfortunately in the last few years we have quite frankly lost our way with respect to the this commitment to the constitution and to the rule of law. the rule of law is not as some have seen it, an obstacle to be overcome, but the very foundations of our nation. It is the rule of law that has held us together despair our differences while other nations have descended into strife. It is the rule of law that has made the united states a beacon to the world- a nation that others aspire to emulate."

"we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam, Water-boarding is torture"

 

 

Obama Reversal

before and after inauguration

OBAMA

Nine days before obamas inauguration the new york times published an article headlined "Obama reluctant to look into Bush programs"

the new yor times sayd " there has been a growing sense that mr obama was not inclined to pursue these matters

Jan 11th 2009 Abc news GEorge S asked Obama based on the change.gov website user question ranking putting the following as #1 most popular/voted on

"Will you appoint a special prosecutor to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration including torture and warrantless wiretapping."

Obamas Response:

"we're going to be looking at past practices and i don't believe that anybody is above the law"

On the other hand i also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards, and part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe, i don't want them suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up"

"Doesn't mean if somebody has blatantly broke the law that they are above the law"

My instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing,… my orientations going to be to move forward"

"My general belief is that when it comes to national security what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong with the past" (all 3 answers from the same interview)

Obama declassifies OLC torture memo on April 16th, 2009

"this is a time for reflection not retribution

At a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying the the blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in Americas ability to right its course in concert with the our core values and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future"

RAHM EMANUEL

ABC news april 2009 after the OLC memo release

when asked whether Obama believes that officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution

he said

"He believes people in good fat were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted"

Emanuels phrasing obscured the distinction between two separate groups responsible: those who crafted it and authorized it, and those who had physically carried it out. He was asked specifically about those in the former group but pretended to ignore that aspect of the question, the reporter pressed again specifying 'those who devised the policy"

his response" Obama believes that they should not prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go"

"Its not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution"

in a New Yorker article they covered Rahms and Erik Holders in fighting. Rahm suggested the appearance erik holder was sticking to the campaign promise could be politically harmful to Obama

"Didn't he get the memo that we're not re-litigating the past"

 

and to add insult to injury, here are people who worked under Bush or who were republicans who also characterized what happened as 'murder' 'torture' and 'war crimes'

 

 

Bush Officials or Republicans using the word 'war crime' 'crime' or 'torture' or 'illegal'

- Michael Mukasey, Bushs attorney general unequivocally told the wall street journal threee days before Obama's inauguration, "torture is a crime"

-Susan J Crawford. Bush appointed convening authority of military commissions by Robert Gates

"We tortured Mohammed al qahtnai"

"His treatment met the legal definition of torture and thats why i did not refer the case for prosecution"

- Antonio Taguba, retired 4 star general appointed to formally investigate the abuse at Abu Ghraib

"After years of disclosures by government investigations media accounts and reports from human rights organizations there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes"

"the only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account"

-Jay Bybee (OLC torture memo lawyer/writer)

"Certain of the techniques [that we condemn by other nations, ie stress positions, water boarding, sexual humiliation] bear some resemblance to some of the CIA interrogation techniques"

- Colonel Lawrence Wilkjerson, chief of Staff to Colin Powell

Bush officials realized early on that "many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value and should be immediately release"

in 2010 he signed an affidavit attesting under oath that

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo prison cpm because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror"

-"General Barry McCaffrey

" We tortured people unmercifully we probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the amered forces and the CIA" approximately 100 detainees including CIA held detainees have die during US interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death"

 

Lyndie England

"we were told to do anything short of killing them"

 

Sabrina Harman

"i was charged with altering evidence, but they altered the evidence before i got to it. they didn't want to bring up the dead guy so the charges were dropped, they didn't want anyone to find out they covered up a murder"

 

short of Obama believing 9/11 is an inside job (which i doubt) this information alone could be the reason why Obama seems so defeated, because he knows better than anyone how much he's enabled and covered up the ridiculous level of war crimes that took place under Bush. This was not the 'bad apple' scenario they tried to paint it to be, it was fully authorized at the highest levels. The public only saw the 'softening up' phase, not the actual torture that took place behind CIA interrogation doors. No photographs exist of what happened beyond 'softening up'. We can only imagine what happened beyond this list (actual words used by people who took part in the softening up stage)

 

 

softening up included (by photographs or admitted from first hand accounts):

simulated sexual positions, handcuffed them together, handcuffed in stress positions, making them wear women's underpants, making them drag their genitals on the freezing concrete floor by crawling on the wet floor, letting dogs bite them, naked simulated sexual positions while handcuffed. insinuating that they would die from shock if they jumped off a chair holding electrical wires, have a female strip the clothes off, burn with a cigarette, cut clothes off with a knife, making them take repeated showers, wiping simulated menstrual blood on detainees face after simulated female masturbation by a female soldier, knocking somebody unconscious by punching them in the temple, kicking them in the genitals, cutting genitals with razor blades, not allowing sleep by handcuffing detainees in stress positions for over 24 hours with headphones forced on head at an uncomfortably loud volume playing various genres of 'hard' music ie: metallica, hip hop

 

none of what i listed above is rumor or innuendo, it all comes from first hand accounts mostly from US soldiers

[baph]

Good point joshuatx; it was of course always clear that Obama was going to focus military efforts on OBL/Afghanistan. I imagine most "liberals" were fine with spilling blood as long as it could be re-characterized as a "just" war and not Bush's war.

 

The interesting compromises/failures of this Administration regarding the war on terror, for me, would be on the domestic/international law front [:sees new post notification, refreshes, sees Awepittance post:]... there they are. Hold on, gotta catch up and read that, lol.

 

Edit: yeah, absolutely stunning.

 

And a little (outdated) refresh on the chronology of the gitmo promise and resulting stall:

 

http://latimesblogs....guantanamo.html

 

http://www.politifac...tention-center/

 

To the extent that executive order was ever actually intended to mean anything, the institutional resistance is pretty fascinating (to me).

[awepittance]

sorry for the epic post above, but if anybody wants to take the time to read it and comment i would be very pleased since i've been putting a lot of work into an upcoming article for mediaroots about this subject

[baph]

sorry for the epic post above, but if anybody wants to take the time to read it and comment i would be very pleased since i've been putting a lot of work into an upcoming article for mediaroots about this subject

 

Epic post is most welcome. I don't have any substantive comments (because I definitely don't have any substantive clue as to what the fuck was going on) but you've done a great job of contextualizing the reversals.

 

Where did that Sabrina Harman quote come from? I've never seen that. Jesus.

[awepittance]

it came from the excellent and neglected Errol Morris documentary 'standard operating procedure' where he focuses in on all the low level soldiers who were thrown under the bus for taking pictures of the 'softening up' phase during an institutionalized torture policy

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YooG1hrPNNg

 

this is part 1 of 10, the whole doc is on youtube

 

great soundtrack by Danny Elfman too

[baph]

Thanks for that!

[syd syside]

That reality sucks. But I also will gladly vote for Obama over Romney b/c the latter in office means potential social conservative laws being passed instead of vetoed, more conservative judicial appointments, more cuts to everything but defense spending, and a mess of deregulation, tax breaks for corporations, and absolute gutting of any environmental protection acts nationwide. That's enough to push me away from a sincere 3rd party vote. I rather be in the company of my naive and annoying liberal friends who gushed over Obama in 2008 than anyone voting for Romney. You know in cartoons and sitcoms those bully characters that tease, provoke, and attack and then cry to their mom or nearby adult as soon as the protagonist fights back? That's a typical present-day Republican in a nutshell. Take away all the corruption, religious bullshit, hawkish attitudes, hypocritical and contradictory economic policies, and at their core the GOP simply like a bunch of whiny children who point the finger at Obama and cry foul.

 

You live in Texas tho.... Romney will win your state. Voting third party tho might help them get government money that usually goes to only the two parties for their National Convention antics and shit.

 

If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote, the Libertarian Party has access to millions of government dollars in 2016.

[link to "]www.postlibertarian.com]

 

Five percent of the vote is definitely within reach for Gary Johnson this year. His name isn’t included in polls all the time, but when it is, he’s hit 7% in New Mexico, 7% in Montana, 5% in Colorado, and 3% in Nevada, to name a few. Nationally he has hit 4% of registered voters (though only 3% of “likely voters”). Another national poll has Johnson at 6% already. They say third-party support tends to dwindle with the increasing gravity of the major parties as we get closer to Election Day, and I would not go so far as to say that it’s likely that Johnson will get 5% of the final vote.

 

But it’s definitely possible. Johnson is on the ballot in at least 47 states, and he’s arguably the strongest candidate the Libertarian Party has had in years, if not ever. He has demonstrated the ability to win a statewide race twice while racking up solid executive experience as a successful governor. As the Obama administration lies about Libya and the Romney campaign continues to flail, more jaded Americans may be willing to throw support to Johnson. And as many of the above polls indicate, he seems to pull equally from both major candidates, debunking the narratives that he spoils the race for one or the other.

 

This means that a vote for Gary Johnson is not a wasted vote as many claim. In fact, depending on your state, your single vote may do more to close the gap between Johnson and 5% than it will to close the gap between the “two evils.” If Johnson does cross the five percent threshold, your single vote literally increases the amount of funding available to the Libertarian Party to spread their message in the next cycle. This would actually make a vote for Johnson the least wasted vote possible.

[syd syside]

Gonna make a prediction:

 

Romney Wins the Election with the Popular Vote, with a swing state being super close and blame again shifted towards Third Parties for spoiling everything.

[awepittance]

if the democrats had a spine, they would speak up more about how Gore actually won the election, not just the popular vote but also the electoral in florida after the recount. it was the supreme court that acted as 'tie breaker' which handed the win to Bush. Instead democrats choose to accuse Ralph of spoiling the race and costing Gore the election.

[SR4]

thats what drives me absolutely buttfucking insane when people crow "lesser of two evils". It' ll remain that way until you start supporting other people outside the framework.

 

third parties and third platforms have been a cornerstone of American democracy...shit most of our founders hated the very idea of parties (hence Federalist and Anti-Federalist positions....Federalists weren't considered a party until Hamilton got control)

 

Third parties dont win the presidency, true. BUT, more often than not if their candidate shows a large turnout come election day, the larger parties are going to try to adapt to win over those voters, hence, Wilson pushing a progressivist agenda....the Dems hadn't been interested in anything other than agrarian reform up until they realized how immensely successful Roosevelt and LaFollette were at pointing out the two-party corruption.

 

 

edit: fucked the quoting system up somehow

[goDel]

One thing that absolutely frustrates the hell out of me is that we're unlikely to see any insight, ever, into the way the military/intelligence apparatus, or the inertia and human error built into that system, informed Obama's continuation of GWB's policies on eg gitmo, the patriot act, the "war" on "terror," etc.

 

Kind of unpacking my stupid tommy carcetti joke, but how the hell can a putatively progressive candidate become compromised so thoroughly on those issues? It's frankly fucking bizarre given the groundswell of popular opposition to GWB policy in '08, and I just want a tiny degree of insight into what sort of institutional/structural/whatever issues are behind it.

 

If it's as simple and cynical as convenient administrative wagging the dog... jesus, we're truly fucked as a species.

 

Edit: of course, that's assuming GWB and Obama weren't ideologically aligned to begin with, which is maybe just an incredibly naive assumption

 

Hold your breath:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71299.html

 

http://www.amazon.com/Obamas-Wars-Bob-Woodward/dp/B004MKLRRO/ref=cm_lmf_tit_11/184-2413111-8003501

 

BTW, can someone explain to me how it is inexplainable that Gitmo cannot be closed? Given the sources I know, it is practically and legally impossible. The only way to close it, is to kill all the people who are still being held there.

[goDel]

his anti war rhetoric was luke warm at best. He often referred to Iraq as the 'dumb war' implying that Afghanistan was the 'smart ...

none of what i listed above is rumor or innuendo, it all comes from first hand accounts mostly from US soldiers

 

But isn't it obvious that the only option was to prosecute the former administration? And that isn't a real option to begin with?

 

And I disagree with your read on "implying that A'stan was the smart one...". It doesn't imply that at all, imo.

[awepittance]

that alone may not imply it but if you followed most of his campaign rhetoric he did imply that it was. Ill find some quotes for you if you wish. He never made any criticisms of the Afghan war except the way in which it was waged. In fact he often (like John Kerry) would agree with Bush entirely on the reasons we went in there and told people that Iraq was a 'miscalculation' and it took the focus off the 'hunt for al qaeda' in Afghanistan.

[awepittance]

And that isn't a real option to begin with?

 

ok let's assume your line of logic for a moment, if its not a 'real option' then doesnt that show we have a major problem in the united states, that high level officials are not subject to the same laws you and i are? I'm not saying this a new problem, but to accept this as just the way it is i think is part of the problem at large.

 

our leaders repeatedly break the law and get away with it. This time it was different, Obama actually violated the Treaty Against Torture and broke the law himself by blocking investigations that were required under law if torture was known to have taken place by American officials, which they had plenty of proof to at least start an investigation over.

[awepittance]

One thing that absolutely frustrates the hell out of me is that we're unlikely to see any insight, ever, into the way the military/intelligence apparatus, or the inertia and human error built into that system, informed Obama's continuation of GWB's policies on eg gitmo, the patriot act, the "war" on "terror," etc.

 

Kind of unpacking my stupid tommy carcetti joke, but how the hell can a putatively progressive candidate become compromised so thoroughly on those issues? It's frankly fucking bizarre given the groundswell of popular opposition to GWB policy in '08, and I just want a tiny degree of insight into what sort of institutional/structural/whatever issues are behind it.

 

If it's as simple and cynical as convenient administrative wagging the dog... jesus, we're truly fucked as a species.

 

Edit: of course, that's assuming GWB and Obama weren't ideologically aligned to begin with, which is maybe just an incredibly naive assumption

 

Hold your breath:

http://www.politico....0112/71299.html

 

http://www.amazon.co...2413111-8003501

 

BTW, can someone explain to me how it is inexplainable that Gitmo cannot be closed? Given the sources I know, it is practically and legally impossible. The only way to close it, is to kill all the people who are still being held there.

 

maybe i missed the point you were trying to make, but what do either of those links have to do with what Baph said? Neither source gives any insight beyond superficial purposeful leaks. Bob Woodward has become sycophantic in his need for access to the president of the united states, this is not the same woodward and bernstien of the past who revealed the pentagon papers. The dude has been on the side of the american government for the last 12 years.

 

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of Staff to Colin Powell (in regards to Gitmo)

Bush officials realized early on that "many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value and should be immediately release"

in 2010 he signed an affidavit attesting under oath that

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo prison cpm because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror"

 

so politically speaking it would be 'impossible' i can get on board with that, because no one in the Obama administration or the prior administration wants to admit the absurdity of how these people got there in the first place ie: bounties, turned in by the northern alliance with no proof of guilt, etc and how the Bush administration kept them there simply for PR reasons to reinforce the propaganda of the war on terror, that America indefinitely detains people for 'our safety'

Now the problem is that so many innocent people have been tortured, and very few have been charged with a crime they essentially will have to let them either rot in jail for the rest of their lives or let them mostly free. Since our government created loop-holes in the law then it's true when you said legally they cant do anything, because GITMO itself is against our own laws and most international treaties. So does this mean it shouldn't be closed? If it's just to sustain the inevitable, the political fallout then i guess better to just let them all die in jail then so we literally have an off-shore gulag that exists for the next 2 generations

 

And if you're coming at this as being an Obama fan then think of it this way, unless Obama closes it or makes drastic steps to in the next 4 years (if he even wins) I can guarantee you that the next Republican to take office will keep it open, and a result it will be nothing but a distant memory that people will rarely speak about. If this doesn't bother you, that's fine. I just don't see how any rational defense can be made for keeping it open unless you worry about the liability of who controls the Whitehouse

[goDel]

It means that it should be closed. And that Obama thought, and probably still thinks it should be closed (seen the documentary linked to earlier already?), but that it's practically and legally impossible to do so. (I'm repeating myself here...). Yes I understand your moral objections to the past and current policies. But I don't understand how you can wipe away the practical squeeze the current administration undergoes in making something out of a huge mess. IMO, it's a loose loose situation where the current administration has no other option than to do what they are already doing.

 

My point against baph was a simple one.

One thing that absolutely frustrates the hell out of me is that we're unlikely to see any insight, ever

 

This is simply not true. Whether you like Woodward book or not, it gives insight. You can put it aside for whatever reason, and put other sources before Woordwards telling of the events. But the fact of the matter is that there's plenty information readily available for anyone interested. It is there to accept or to disagree with. Whether A has the right point or B is, IMO not really interesting. What is relevant is whether the description can be based on evidence from multiple sources. History should be a science first and foremost. Not someones personal take on the events. And although I hold Woodward in high regards, and think of him as a man with integrity, I don't see his story as absolute truths. But despite the imperfections, there's still a lot to take from it. Far more than to put it aside as mumbo jumbo lies bla bla and what not.

 

Please don't start cherry picking for facts favorable towards your own beliefs. If you hate the republican bubble (thanks you bill maher), at least be consistent and hate any other bubble as well.

[syd syside]

his anti war rhetoric was luke warm at best. He often referred to Iraq as the 'dumb war' implying that Afghanistan was the 'smart war' without directly mentioning it, he always planned and talked about doing a surge in afghanistan to 'take the fight to al qaeda' (absurd). However he did often make very strong statements in regard to the Bush administration's lawlessness. To me this was at least an indication that he strongly believes Bush had broke the law, but then reversed quickly after (as defined by the Treaty against torture signed into law by Reagan that makes it a crime to immunize torturers when blatant evidence exists that it happened). At this point Obama is legally just as complicit as the bush administration A) for having ample evidence the geneva convention and treaty against torture were blatantly breached B) for refusing to investigate 99% of the cases made light of during investigations that took place under Bush, Obama left open 2 investigations involving blatant murder by american authorities, one that died from exposure and another that appeared in the infamous photographs with sabrina harman after the CIA put a dead body back in the prison cell with a hood over the head to make it appear he was still alive (only to be discovered as dead by low level military personnel). The other cases were closed, and none of them were ever intended to investigate the people who instructed lower level military to torture, they were still designed to go after the lowest level officials.

 

Here are some quotes before his election win and i will contrast them with quotes after his win

 

 

- During obama's campaign he made it abundantly clear that he felt Bush and his cabinet broke the law,

and he is on record of saying so repeatedly

he used the word 'torture' to describe Bush's policies

to a cheering crowd he said

"the era of scooter libby justice… will be over"

"no more ignoring the law when it's inconvenient that is not who we are"

"We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary"

 

 

Senator obama opposed the confirmation of NSA chief Michael Hayden as CIA director.

Literally saying

"The architect and chief defender of a program of wiretapping and collection of phone records outside of FISA oversight."

"send a clear signal to the administration that President Bush is not above the law"

 

 

possibility of prosecutions after election

Obama

"What i would want to do is to have my justice department and my attorney general immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be persued"

"i would want to find out directly from my attorney general having pursued having looked at what's out there right now - are there possibilities of genuine crimes?"

"if crimes have been committed they should be investigated if i found out that there were high officials who knowingly consciously broke the laws engaged in coverups of crimes with knowledge of forefront, then i think a basic pricipale

of our constitution is that nobody is above the law"

Erik Holder said of Bush 2008

had denounced the "disrespect of the rule of law"

"Our government authorized the use of torture approved of secret electronic surveillance of american citizens secretly detained american citizens without due process of law denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that both violate international law and the united states constitution"

"Patriotism of those responsible for these policies does nothing to mitigate the fact that these steps were wrong when they were initiated and they are wrong today"

"we owe the american people a reckoning"

"unfortunately in the last few years we have quite frankly lost our way with respect to the this commitment to the constitution and to the rule of law. the rule of law is not as some have seen it, an obstacle to be overcome, but the very foundations of our nation. It is the rule of law that has held us together despair our differences while other nations have descended into strife. It is the rule of law that has made the united states a beacon to the world- a nation that others aspire to emulate."

"we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam, Water-boarding is torture"

 

 

Obama Reversal

before and after inauguration

OBAMA

Nine days before obamas inauguration the new york times published an article headlined "Obama reluctant to look into Bush programs"

the new yor times sayd " there has been a growing sense that mr obama was not inclined to pursue these matters

Jan 11th 2009 Abc news GEorge S asked Obama based on the change.gov website user question ranking putting the following as #1 most popular/voted on

"Will you appoint a special prosecutor to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration including torture and warrantless wiretapping."

Obamas Response:

"we're going to be looking at past practices and i don't believe that anybody is above the law"

On the other hand i also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards, and part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe, i don't want them suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up"

"Doesn't mean if somebody has blatantly broke the law that they are above the law"

My instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing,… my orientations going to be to move forward"

"My general belief is that when it comes to national security what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed to looking at what we got wrong with the past" (all 3 answers from the same interview)

Obama declassifies OLC torture memo on April 16th, 2009

"this is a time for reflection not retribution

At a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying the the blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in Americas ability to right its course in concert with the our core values and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future"

RAHM EMANUEL

ABC news april 2009 after the OLC memo release

when asked whether Obama believes that officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution

he said

"He believes people in good fat were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted"

Emanuels phrasing obscured the distinction between two separate groups responsible: those who crafted it and authorized it, and those who had physically carried it out. He was asked specifically about those in the former group but pretended to ignore that aspect of the question, the reporter pressed again specifying 'those who devised the policy"

his response" Obama believes that they should not prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go"

"Its not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution"

in a New Yorker article they covered Rahms and Erik Holders in fighting. Rahm suggested the appearance erik holder was sticking to the campaign promise could be politically harmful to Obama

"Didn't he get the memo that we're not re-litigating the past"

 

and to add insult to injury, here are people who worked under Bush or who were republicans who also characterized what happened as 'murder' 'torture' and 'war crimes'

 

 

Bush Officials or Republicans using the word 'war crime' 'crime' or 'torture' or 'illegal'

- Michael Mukasey, Bushs attorney general unequivocally told the wall street journal threee days before Obama's inauguration, "torture is a crime"

-Susan J Crawford. Bush appointed convening authority of military commissions by Robert Gates

"We tortured Mohammed al qahtnai"

"His treatment met the legal definition of torture and thats why i did not refer the case for prosecution"

- Antonio Taguba, retired 4 star general appointed to formally investigate the abuse at Abu Ghraib

"After years of disclosures by government investigations media accounts and reports from human rights organizations there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes"

"the only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account"

-Jay Bybee (OLC torture memo lawyer/writer)

"Certain of the techniques [that we condemn by other nations, ie stress positions, water boarding, sexual humiliation] bear some resemblance to some of the CIA interrogation techniques"

- Colonel Lawrence Wilkjerson, chief of Staff to Colin Powell

Bush officials realized early on that "many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value and should be immediately release"

in 2010 he signed an affidavit attesting under oath that

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumseld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo prison cpm because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror"

-"General Barry McCaffrey

" We tortured people unmercifully we probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the amered forces and the CIA" approximately 100 detainees including CIA held detainees have die during US interrogations, and some are known to have been tortured to death"

 

Lyndie England

"we were told to do anything short of killing them"

 

Sabrina Harman

"i was charged with altering evidence, but they altered the evidence before i got to it. they didn't want to bring up the dead guy so the charges were dropped, they didn't want anyone to find out they covered up a murder"

 

short of Obama believing 9/11 is an inside job (which i doubt) this information alone could be the reason why Obama seems so defeated, because he knows better than anyone how much he's enabled and covered up the ridiculous level of war crimes that took place under Bush. This was not the 'bad apple' scenario they tried to paint it to be, it was fully authorized at the highest levels. The public only saw the 'softening up' phase, not the actual torture that took place behind CIA interrogation doors. No photographs exist of what happened beyond 'softening up'. We can only imagine what happened beyond this list (actual words used by people who took part in the softening up stage)

 

 

softening up included (by photographs or admitted from first hand accounts):

simulated sexual positions, handcuffed them together, handcuffed in stress positions, making them wear women's underpants, making them drag their genitals on the freezing concrete floor by crawling on the wet floor, letting dogs bite them, naked simulated sexual positions while handcuffed. insinuating that they would die from shock if they jumped off a chair holding electrical wires, have a female strip the clothes off, burn with a cigarette, cut clothes off with a knife, making them take repeated showers, wiping simulated menstrual blood on detainees face after simulated female masturbation by a female soldier, knocking somebody unconscious by punching them in the temple, kicking them in the genitals, cutting genitals with razor blades, not allowing sleep by handcuffing detainees in stress positions for over 24 hours with headphones forced on head at an uncomfortably loud volume playing various genres of 'hard' music ie: metallica, hip hop

 

none of what i listed above is rumor or innuendo, it all comes from first hand accounts mostly from US soldiers

 

Excellent post

[syd syside]

Your boss sends you a letter telling you to vote for Romney

 

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Published: October 26, 2012

 

Imagine getting a letter from the boss, telling you how to vote.

 

Until 2010, federal law barred companies from using corporate money to endorse and campaign for political candidates — and that included urging employees to support specific politicians.

 

But the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision has freed companies from those restrictions, and now several major companies, including Georgia-Pacific and Cintas, have sent letters or information packets to their employees suggesting — and sometimes explicitly recommending — how they should vote this fall.

 

In these letters, the executives complain about the costs of overregulation, the health care overhaul and possible tax increases. Some letters warn that if President Obama is re-elected, the company could be harmed, potentially jeopardizing jobs.

“If the employer wants to say, ‘This candidate is good or bad for our business and therefore good or bad for you, the employee, that’s permissible — that’s protected by the First Amendment,” Professor Volokh said. “But if the employer threatens to fire you based on how you vote, that’s not protected.”

 

But many liberal legal experts fear that employees could be discouraged from exercising their rights to free speech.

 

“The concern here is there is an unavoidable power disparity between management and employees,” said Adam Skaggs, senior counsel at the liberal Brennan Center for Justice. “Put yourself in the shoes of an employee at any of those companies. Are you going to be comfortable putting an Obama bumper sticker on your car and driving into the company parking lot? If you’re in a small community with a big employer, will you feel uncomfortable about putting up a yard sign for a candidate your boss doesn’t favor?”

 

Thanks Citizen United...