Do You Want Obama to pursue Prosecution For Torture

the memos document the fact that W, Cheney and thier cronies committed criminal acts.

the prison guards at the Abu Grhu prison were prosecuted for their criminal acts. the same applies to W, Cheney and their cronies. Short of giving them a Presidential pardon---a la Ford's pardon of Nixon---President Obama need to prosecute these criminals. Justise delayed is justice denied.

it is pretty clear.

 

Good point!! Too many people do not see the difference. I'm not saying torture is good or necessary, but torture with the intent of trying to get information is different than torture just due to anger or being an ass. Just my opinion.

 

I think prosecution is less likely, if not off the table, after yesterday's happenings.

Typical liberal mindset though -- instead of applauding the Bush Administration for keeping us safe, they attack them for being so gosh darn mean to known terrorists. Seriously, what planet are these libs living on? Terrorists are held in higher regard than the CIA and the military.

You can't stand on your moral highground when you are killed by a terrorist. And that's a fact. Do whatever it takes.

 

Yes! Prosecution is the only way to prevent such crimes from being committed (perhaps by the Obama admin. itself) in the future. Allowing torturers to go unpunished is no more excusable than actually engaging in acts of torture.

If you really think torture is a serious issue, there is no way you can avoid prosecution.

 

Exactly. After Nixon, I never thought I'd see a more lawless administration. Then W. stocks his administration with people who learned under Nixon and it is substantially worse. Can you imagine how bad the next Republican administration will be if we don't prosecute these guys (and Condi)?

 

Let's not forget that Democrats can be lawless too. I know Obama has had a lot on his plate since taking office, but he hasn't exactly done much to undo the framework for executive extra-legal action set up by Bush. His reluctance to prosecute here is only the most recent example. Obama is no Bush, to be sure, but any person holding the reins of power will be tempted to abuse them. That's why the rule of law is vital to a just society, and failure to prosecute the torturers represents a failure to uphold the rule of law.

 

I agree with that and I suspect some Dem Congressional leaders may be complicit in the Bush administration's torture. If so, they need to serve as an example as well.

 

according to the Bush Admin 'w own words, of the 20+ prisoners that they released from Gitmo, everyone of them returned to terrorist activities against the USA.

i repeat, the Bush Admin had imprisoned them and then, after extensive interrogation which included torture, released them enabling them to return to terrorist activities.

you're but a traitor of logics and the the US constitution.

 

This argument would be great for maybe a high school or college classroom, or perhaps in a romance novel, but when it's nut cuttin time, and lives are at stake, you just don't make arguments like this. You have to bring whatever it takes to the table. Appealing to morality and righteousness is a nice, feel good concept (great for academia and ivory tower discussions), that will leave you with the chance to write a bunch of beautiful obituaries extolling the virtues and nobility of dead wimps.

 

We are living on a planet where we look at evidence that shows torture isn't effective and doesn't keep us safer, and has in fact endangered our troops.

We are living on a planet where we would like our nation to act more morally than terrorists.

What planet are you living on that you would rather act like Saddam Hussein and torture, even though it is more dangerous for our troops?

 

What is it with wingers expressing a desire that their political opponents suffer some horrible fate? It really is a sickness on the right these days.

 

T_J, I would love to respond to someone of a different mind such as yourself, but I can't for the life of me find an argument in this post. It's probably my own shortcomings getting in the way, but would you mind rephrasing your post so that I can clearly identify the point you are trying to make?

 

Other countries care more about what we did wrong than what we did right. Airing out our sins in that respect is counterproductive.

I think there are a host of negatives that outweigh the positives. I rather raise the penalties for prosecution and eliminate whatever loophole or flimsy justification for broadcasting their torturing with no abandon like what the Bush Admin did.

 

Holy ****.

 

Since on many occasions we have provided evidence that torture actually stopped useful information from being gained, please provide evidence to back up your claim.

TIA

 

Isn't there a little irony in your post, seeing what thread it is posted in?

 

The strongest evidence isn't people testifying in front of a panel of angry Senators, where they are trying their best to tell them what they want to hear (and stay out of legal trouble). The strongest evidence is what the CIA and military have concluded is the most effective method. Why would they waste their time waterboarding if they didn't believe in its effectiveness? It was proven to be effective against the most hardened terrorists, like KSM.

 

What's the point of raising the penalties for prosecution if there's no prosecution? The loopholes/justifications that allowed torture to go on ARE the crime.