General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnyone who claims Obama called the torturers "patriots"...
...Is a "fucking piece of shit used car salesmen" and they know it.
Here is Obama's full quote on the matter, in context, and not creatively clipped as some have done here:
I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel too sanctimonious in retrospect about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."
"A lot of those folks". Not all, and certainly, not the ones who committed torture. Did most of the people in law enforcement and national security commit torture? The answer is clearly no. Many in the CIA objected, protested and left their jobs because of it. These people certainly are patriots. And there were a lot of them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Finally, someone objects to the Gish Gallop of the Obama-haters on this board.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Autumn
(45,012 posts)
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts) Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
marym625
(17,997 posts)Good one!
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 12, 2014, 12:24 PM - Edit history (1)
I would give it a bit more time, don't you think?
Maybe I'll try out a rectal hydration joke and see how it flies. Yeh sure, that alert button will be pounded on instantly. Nice to be a protected species, isn't it?
DMay
(22 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)And they push their bottom lip out and flutter their eyes while making the promise.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Nt.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Recalling that Lynddie England, or whatever he name was and that may have been even during the Shrub Administration.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)DMay
(22 posts)One does not have to "hate" Obama, to know he made excuses for War Criminals, who used torture, tortured innocent people to death, raped women and children, then let them all go free. Some even still work for US Govt. I voted for him, would vote for him again. BUT? facts are facts, dont act like a (R) who ignores the truth!
It used to be against the TOS to accuse people of being Republicans, but whatever.
DU ceased to be DU a long time ago.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Do you support the President's soft peddle of the Bush torture program?
Hekate
(90,616 posts)Why don't you address that issue?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)shenmue called those that don't bow down to the President, Obama haters. IMO that's rude enough to be hid and sure as hell isn't addressing any issue, just name calling. But then that's all the Obama defenders have, name calling. Never address an issue, just ad hominem attacks.
How about you? Do you support Pres Obama's mollifying words that sadly try to rationalize away the Bush war crimes? Do you think we should ignore the Bush War crimes?
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)That poster said don't deny facts like a Republican would. You think that's more offensive?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)shenmue
(38,506 posts)It's against the TOS. Or it was, when we cared.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Accusing someone of hating Obama is more offensive than saying don't deny the truth like a Republican would, to me.
Maybe that should be added to the TOS.... Don't accuse your fellow DUers of hating Obama.
If they were both in the TOS would you then agree that yours was at least equally offensive?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)I am really sad to see so many excuse so much. I have absolutely no idea what is behind that. If you don't agree with Obama you're either an Obama hater or a racist. No logic behind it.
He gave them a pass on war crimes a long time ago. He did it again a couple years ago. Why is this a shock to anyone, on either side of the issue? And why try to defend it? Twisting the words to make them not what was meant denies all actions taken by President Obama regarding this the people that ordered the torture and who carried it out.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Some watch Faux News, take notes, and drag their idiocy (dishonest tactics) up in here.
Yeah, you're not missing a lick. 
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)uponit7771
(90,323 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We really want to blame president Obama for something.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)You mean, for some on this board, blame him for everything.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)on the parsing and over-analysis of a phrase, and then lying the wrong at the feet of the one that has worked to end the wrong; it's called, "blame".
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...just not all? Thanks for the clarification!
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)brush
(53,758 posts)You got that wrong.
He said the ones who objected to the torture and quit their jobs were patriots.
No Fox Noise creative edit here, pls.
There are plenty of people to blame who were responsible and were in power and authorized it.
Blame them please.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)We revere our patriots, huh?
brush
(53,758 posts)BLAME THEM LOUD AND CLEAR AND SCREAM FOR THEM TO GO TO JAIL.
I'll be with you on that all the way.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and we will be with him all the way. Maybe Cheney put the scare in him.
brush
(53,758 posts)but the president, even this one, represents the State as did the Bush cabal so the State is not going to prosecute the State and document that with formal charges and trials.
Wish that would happen though.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)I understand that the President's hands are tied in this, but in my dreams I am hoping there is some co-operation with another state to nail the bastards.
It's a teeny weeny bit possible, isn't it?
brush
(53,758 posts)and fly to the Netherlands.
I understand they can be prosecuted at the Hague as war criminals.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)like how they got Eichmann to Israel for trial.
I could live with that,
brush
(53,758 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)"He said the ones who objected to the torture and quit their jobs were patriots. "
Where is the sarcasm thingy.
brush
(53,758 posts)elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Fuck already what's wrong with y'all. DUers used to be able to read and understand plain text.
brush
(53,758 posts)"A lot of those folks". Not all, and certainly, not the ones who committed torture. Did most of the people in law enforcement and national security commit torture? The answer is clearly no. Many in the CIA objected, protested and left their jobs because of it. These people certainly are patriots. And there were a lot of them."
Does that not say the people who left their jobs are the patriots, but certainly not the ones who committed torture?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)when they don't WANT to understand plain English. Thus the entire reason for this thread's existence.
"President Obama didn't say what he said because if he said it, it would be bad."
That's the summation of this thread.
brush
(53,758 posts)"President Obama didn't say what he said because if he said it, it would be bad."
Are you agreeing on not agreeing with the poster who said, "bullshit, the president called torturers patriots"?
My second response to that poster was this graph from the original OP that stated that the president did not call torturers patriouts:
"A lot of those folks". Not all, and certainly, not the ones who committed torture. Did most of the people in law enforcement and national security commit torture? The answer is clearly no. Many in the CIA objected, protested and left their jobs because of it. These people certainly are patriots. And there were a lot of them."
Does that not say the people who left their jobs are the patriots, but certainly not the ones who committed torture?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And try to get others to buy into it.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Do people honestly think that the President thinks that torturers are patriots? 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Some on DU REALLY, REALLY do ... but, then, they are also the same people that can find nothing positive that President Obama has done.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)100% of the time with the President. It does seem like some aren't happy with anything ever. I tune them out.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)How long has the report been out? 48 hours or so?
This isn't the kind of thing that you run down to the courthouse and for $50 file some papers.
eomer
(3,845 posts)He and the DOJ have known all these details for quite some time.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Nobody knows how long anybody has known about this.
eomer
(3,845 posts)You seemed to be saying it wasn't reasonable to criticize the President for not prosecuting because the report has been out only 48 hours. What does the time at which *we* first saw the report have to do with the obligations of the President and the DOJ to do their job in upholding the laws?
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)A long time. How long do you think it took to prepare for the trial at Nuremberg?
Has he said that this won't be prosecuted?
eomer
(3,845 posts)The time it took to begin the Nuremberg trials was months, not years.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
LiberalLovinLug
(14,168 posts)You don't think you can be taken seriously do you HappyMe?
So Lindsey Graham saw revelations of torture at abu ghraib, more extensive than the public has ever seen, way back in 2003 and was visibly shaken. And 11 years later, the President of the United States just now, along with the rest of us, has seen the torture report?
And you also have convinced yourself that he fully intends to prosecute the war crimes....its just that he with Eric Holder have just found out about what is revealed, or they have known about it, and kept it to themselves and are waiting for juuuuuuuuust the right time..or that they have actually been working on it but its just taking so damn long. Meanwhile he told the public that its better to "move on".
No, its pretty obvious Obama did not want to be "controversial" when he first entered office. He didn't want to become the President that would be portrayed in the MSM news as someone attacking our brave god fearing troops or putting the country at even greater terrorist threat, or in any way criticizing American the Beautiful (which is the way the MSM would define it). Hell he was already being accused of doing all those things, I think he had a choice then, either say what the hell, they are already attacking me I might as well just push ahead with prosecutions,...or....he could cower from the onslaught and try and appease the war criminal class into taking it easier on him, which is the direction he chose. Of course the MSM with the Republicans and probably a few Blue Dogs would have destroyed any chance of a second term. But historically, I think this one-term version of Obama would have been held in very high regard for starting the painful process that eventually got the USA back on track. But he made his choice early on.
The corporate class, including companies like Halliburton who made out like banshees in Iraq, want all methods, including torture, and lying to the public about the threat level to be continued to some future President to use. Obama has been very accommodating to them. And for that he will be justly rewarded. As Tony Blair was after he left office (more like shamed out) when he was appointed an executive of the Carlyle Group, an arms dealer that was awarded lucrative contracts in Iraq and heavily invested in by the Bush family.
If Obama does an about face at this point in time and declares he will go ahead with prosecution, with no limits on how high up the food chain, I will eat crow.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You know, the last guy who tried to order the AG around got impeached....
Ask the ghosts of Elliot Richardson ... or Robert Bork!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
Cha
(297,026 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)If you have a gripe against him for something he said during the campaign, then discuss that. But don't take something he said and make it seem like something he didn't.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I should think that his earlier statements about no-one being above the law is very relevant.
Who do you think he was talking about in reference to when speaking about torture? The janitors at CIA headquarters?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... when he said "a lot of them were patriots", instead if saying all of them were patriots?
Law enforcement and nat'l security WERE under a lot of pressure in the wake of 9/11. If Obama thought they were ALL patriots, why did he qualify his statement by saying "a lot of them", and not ALL of them?
If Obama believes that torturers are "patriots", why didn't he come right out and say so?
If Obama truly believes that torturers are patriots, where are his other statements saying the same thing? Or do you think he figured he could just imply that torturers are patriots this one time, and no one would notice?
brush
(53,758 posts)Are you one of the ones who agree that the president called torturers patriots?
If so, please post the direct, in context quote.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)with some names/crimes/charges.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Autumn
(45,012 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)you need things like facts to prosecute. Names, dates, acts.
I actually think we have a better shot of prosecuting those who covered up after the fact, than those who did the torturing...which is sad.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)that was done by people in our government he would suddenly switch to talking about people who in his mind knew nothing of the torture and refer to them as "some". I don't think he would have been so clumsy with his words like that. Obama is one hell of a word smith he can put words together like no one else ever has. Even in an off the cuff interview he doesn't run things together like that. He is so fucking clear with his words and their meanings. It's a skill and he has it. He says just what he means, there is no parsing with this man.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think he was awkward, because on the one hand, he has to work with people in the Executive branch every day....people who had no knowledge of torture, didn't participate in it. On the other hand, he knows there are still people who condoned torture in career positions.
I think the lesson I took from all of this is that his actions on this matter have been nothing short of breathtaking.....even if his words were not what I would have hoped for.
brush
(53,758 posts)If so please post the in context quote.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)search and find it.
brush
(53,758 posts)"A lot of those folks". Not all, and certainly, not the ones who committed torture. Did most of the people in law enforcement and national security commit torture? The answer is clearly no. Many in the CIA objected, protested and left their jobs because of it. These people certainly are patriots. And there were a lot of them."
Does that not say the people who left their jobs are the patriots, but certainly not the ones who committed torture?
Autumn
(45,012 posts)"The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the sound track of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It’s going to come out.”
What Obama said and how he said it? I don't give a flying shit, I don't give a flying fuck, he wasn't there. That quote, that action that was done by those in our fucking government, put there after 9/11 fucking did that.
I don't care who fucking left their jobs. they knew and in my opinion they are accessory to the crime. All I want to hear is that these fuckers did that and they need to be charged.
brush
(53,758 posts)But the president did not call sodomizers and torturers patriots.
Let's all stop with the hyperbole and agree on that.
Then let's all get together and raise as much hell and do everything we can to go after the sodomizers and torturers.
I'm with you on that but not on saying the president called sodomizers and torturers patriots.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Kamal, Youseff, Amir (https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_Reports/BrokenLaws_14.pdf)
The crimes:
18 U.S. Code § 2340 - Definitions
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
....Just for starters.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You want this....
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113C › § 2340A
18 U.S. Code § 2340A - Torture
Current through Pub. L. 113-185. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.
Now show how you make your case....they never touched your victim.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)victims. Because there, we just get the little fish.
To get the bosses at the top...how would you do it?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Unless, of course, the # 2 big fish is so proud of what he did, he goes on national tv throwing the # 1 big fish under the bus as well while boasting about what he did. In which case I'd use what he says against all of them, since it was said freely and publicly.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)this. The Nazis at Nuremberg were convicted in part because of their meticulous recordkeeping.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And letting those little fish go - why wouldn't have be just as evil? Especially ones who actually did the torturing.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)that hitmen get deals cut to nail the crime lords. Yes, they did the specific individual acts of evil, but the ones ordering the evil usually ordered far more evil than they're ever brought up on charges for, or tied to.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That takes a second. To actually carry out torture is way different. How can a person do it without being evil? They have to spend hours making someone else suffer. Hard to see that as being far less evil than ordering it.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)torturers?????
Where is your head at?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Not just the grunts...how do you prosecute Tenant?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Somebody posted the 'architects of torture' graphic in another thread. It had a starting group of a couple of dozen names of the people who worked to start the torture and to pretend it was 'legal'. Didn't list the actual people who carried out the torture, but it had the top level of conspirators.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Any number of iraqi's or afghani's tortured as part of his counter insurgency program.
Kidnapping, torture and murder.
This didn't just involve a handful of people. Washington was all in when in 2003 when they screened the "battle for algiers" at the pentagon a movie documenting the destruction of a guerrilla movement through torture. It was described as a playbook for the WOT.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)As we see, they mean nothing because he is a forward looking kind of guy.
It could be by the word "some" he was talking about Bush and Cheney in which case perhaps we all owe them an apology.
( 
apology my fucking ass.} I think that there is no separation between those who ordered torture, those who supported torture, those who knew of the torture and said nothing and those who did the actual torture. Sorry 'a lot of those folks" knew of the torture and they are all fucking accessories to torture. They are not fucking patriots and yes Obama called them patriots.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)"our law enforcement and our national security teams". By your definition every single law enforcement officer and every single military and CIA individual either tortured or covered-up torture. Which is absurd and wrong. You don't like the truth so you're trying to change it. It is in black and white, Obama was referring to the entire law enforcement and security teams when he made that comment. Your argument is a lie just by the fact that law enforcement had nothing to do with torture, wouldn't have been aware of it and has no contact outside the US with prisoners. C'mon, are you going to continue to spread false information?
If a person has to be dishonest to make their point, they don't have a very good point.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)chide those who was being so sanctimonious about them doing their job on 9/11? No one was. You are dishonest and a liar yourself if you think that those teams on 9/11 were the only ones being referenced by the President when he said he understood why IT happened and them went on to talk about not feeling too sanctimonious in retrospect. Who were the people on Bush's national security team? Who were the heads of Bush's FBI and CIA on 9/11? (there's the law enforcement Obama was talking about)
"With respect to the RDI report, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values.
I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this. And it’s important for us not to feel about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots."
Autumn
(45,012 posts)Patriots one and all 
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)right?
The report was issued 48 hours ago, and the bastards aren't in jail? .... Thanks (President) Obama!
840high
(17,196 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I suspect that if cheney keeps talking, all bets will be off.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)Look, I want Obama to have the DOJ prosecute, I dont think he will, and I wont be happy.
I also want Obama NOT to sign the CR that will include in it the rescission of one of the most important parts of Dodd/Frank preventing Citi group and the like risking deposits and then if they lose we have to pay, us the taxpayers.
If he signs that I will be angry.
Hillary probably would sign it also.
I am not angry at Obama for not doing what I want in these instances, I am angry at a system where I am certain NOBODY could do these things and expect to stay in the system'
the system is broken, blaming Obama for that is a waste of energy
shanti
(21,675 posts)the dick has been running his mouth since he left office, doubling down on his bs even. he will never be prosecuted, and everyone knows it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)dflprincess
(28,075 posts)we must forget what he said then and look forward to what he'll say next. And then we must read between the lines so that we truly understand what he said lest we misread his remarks and if we still don't get what he really meant someone will explain it to us. But by then those remarks will be in the past as well.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)torturers did some evil things, but there is no evidence or corroboration of Seymour Hirsch's claim that "children were sodomized in front of their mothers."
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link
...Samari claimed that torture was routine in the SPC-controlled detention centres. "I remember a 14-year-old..."
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)mother. Your point?
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)TOTALLY DIFFERENT:
CIA Rendition and Enhanced Interrogation Program (now under discussion), Abu Ghraib ("bad apples" report), Pentagon "outsourcing" (The Guardian report, above).
Those who are mixing up the horrors are allowing you to correct the misinformation - isn't that debate style called "strawman" argument? Annoying as f*ck, IMO.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)child molestation and conflated it with a statement Obama made regarding torture and the situation after 9/11.
In other words, put up or hush up.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)Disengaging...
nilesobek
(1,423 posts)butt pyramid to know that these sick sadists would do that.
If you are going to rely on hard evidence then you will be disappointed because the CIA already admits it "lost," or destroyed huge amounts of the torture evidence including tapes and transcripts.
Who should I trust? The CIA or Seymour Hirsch?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)President Obama called torturers patriots.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I recall his speech. Am I supposed to simply forget that he made it?
It is unfortunate that he made that speech, it is inconvenient, but that horse has left the barn long ago. Trying to close the door at this point is rather silly.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Your reading and the OP's is itself tortured.
He said that he understood why we to tires and that we shouldn't be too sanctimonious about it now. There is no other way to read his plain statements.
Marr
(20,317 posts)"A lot of those folks" is just couching the statement in DC's patented brand of phony, Hometown USA language. The meaning is crystal clear.
I expect you'll get a lot of cheers from people who *want* to believe he never said that, but please-- don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And the other "alternative reality pushers" who want to chime in on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5945092
Marr
(20,317 posts)He was talking about the use of torture and the people who did it, so in my experience with the english language, the meaning is clear.
But please, explain the 3-dimensional grammar rules that make that phrase apply to some other group of people.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)Because if a person knew nothing about the torture that said person would be the patriot Obama was referring to. Otherwise they would be an accessory to torture. I think any lawyer would know that, even a person who just stayed at a Holiday Inn and is playing like they are a lawyer I'm pretty sure lawyers know that words used in a certain context have a lot of bearing on the meaning of those words. "It all depends on the meaning of the word is" kind of lawyer stuff. You know that he does play zillion dimensional chess so 3-dimensional grammar would be the next logical step.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)It seems there are many people in this thread using some spatial anomaly to explain that they aren't doing exactly what they are doing.
My favorite was "I'm not using the "he did it, too" defense" and then said poster went on to describe how somebody else did it, too, as though that excused such behavior.
You hit the nail on the head - "these folks" want to dance around and come up with weird reasons why somehow, they aren't doing ... exactly what they are doing!
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Clearly, in very plain English, "those folks" he referenced in the second sentence are "the law enforcement and national security teams" he referred to in the immediately previous sentence. He then went on to say that "a lot of those folks" are patriots. Not ALL, but "a lot of".
There are no three-dimensional grammar rules at play here - unless you're Will Pitt, and you simply "edit" out the preceding sentence in order to imply that the subsequent sentence followed a completely different statement, being "we tortured some folks."
FOX-News editing skills come to DU - I guess it was just a matter of time.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)From Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Propaganda Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Quoted at http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/home.htm and http://www.vcsun.org/~ilene/secured_305text/propa.html
Plain folks
"Plain Folks" is a device used by politicians, labor leaders, businessmen, and even by ministers and educators to win our confidence by appearing to be people like ourselves- "just plain folks among the neighbors." In election years especially do candidates show their devotion to little children and the common, homey things of life. They have front porch campaigns. For the newspapermen they raid the kitchen cupboard, finding there some of the good wife's apple pie. They go to country picnics; they attend service at the old frame church; they pitch hay and go fishing; they show their belief in home and mother. In short, they would win our votes by showing that they're just as common as the rest of us- "just plain folks"- and, therefore, wise and good. Businessmen often are "plain folks" with the factory hands. Even distillers use the device. "It's our family's whiskey, neighbor; and neighbor, it's your price."
Given the context, which is the more likely scenario; that Obama was referring to torturers, or not?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Obama CALLED them PATRIOTS. Which part of the torture report did you not read, and which part of the speech where he said "some folks" are you unaware of?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)no, she simply has to be kidding.
0rganism
(23,933 posts)what exactly is a "patriot"? dictionary.com gives 3 definitions, the third of which refers to a missile and i'll omit that here:
1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
2. a person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the federal government.
meaning #2 doesn't really apply here either, since we're talking about the actions of people on behalf of the government which employed them. So we're left with #1: "a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion"
Could one engage in torture or various war crimes in the name of national defense and still be considered a "patriot" by this definition? i think so.
Are the two really mutually exclusive? i'm inclined to say no.
Does being patriotic or acting patriotically in any way excuse acting as a torturer? obviously not. there is no excuse for torture.
Ultimately, i think we need to reconsider the assumption that a patriot is above reproach.
deurbano
(2,894 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)If he wasn't talking about the torturers, why would he think anyone was being 'sanctimonious' about the 'tough job' the non-torturers had?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in their condemnations, the torturers from the non-torturers?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)Why would a failure to distinguish torturers from non-torturers (which he didn't mention, anyway) be 'sanctimonious'? The sentence goes on "... about the tough job that those folks had. And a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots". He's putting forward reasons why they might do their job wrong, not talking about whether some innocent people are being condemned along with the guilty. He's putting forward mitigating circumstances, not claiming his clients weren't part of the crime, in defense lawyer terms.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)the entire nation.
"A lot of those folks" is not everyone and obviously refers to the people who weren't doing wrong.
He's admitting we as a nation were wrong.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)some of the folks who have been working hard under stressful conditions, and hoping their colleagues' wrongs are not attributed to them.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Why in the world would non torturers need defense? From sanctimony, at that?
Poppycock.
If he was trying to give "a shout out" to those who didn't take a dump on our espoused values then it would have been very, very easy he could have verbally separated the wheat from the chaff by exalting the folks that did the right thing from those that are monsters by simply saying that "many folks despite being under tremendous pressure in the worst possible environment refused to take part in these atrocities many sacrificing their careers and livelihoods, potentially their own and their family's safety. These are the real patriots".
That was not what was stated no matter how some would like to insist on pretending. It was a defense via rationalization of the torturers.
How does one twist their own brain in the knots required to think that during a speech about fussing to "torturing some folks" that someone would need to defend the people that weren't monstrous (without categorically identifying them, mind you) from sanctimony? This in a crafted speech not off the cuff remarks or even a fumbled response to a question or something.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not everyone thinks in clear black and white. Thats' what he's getting at. I doubt they have time to plan every word to the hilt. But you have time to examine each word and come to the conclusion he supports torture, even though he's saying it was wrong we did it. And many acts took place which would have been grey area and not so easily judged in a courtroom. The problem is you think it's crystal clear but when you get into having to prove it, it can get very difficult. the defendants would have legions of lawyers arguing what is and what is not torture, both under the Convention Against Torture and under 18 USC 2340A.
The first prosecutions under the latter:
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/pub/2008/ij/HRB_Chuckie_Taylor.pdf
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)The torturers were wrong. The officials who ordered torture were wrong. I'm just a sanctimonious nobody, who thinks torture is always wrong.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I don't have to agree with Bushco to know I am an American and what Bushco did was said to be for America. He's talking about all the people who worked, not torturers only. And people may have done some unsavory things that weren't torture. It's so broad a reference that it's hard to believe anyone would strain it out so that it says to them: torture is OK.
Demit
(11,238 posts)The administration who ordered torture, and the people who tortured and heard the screams and continued to torture, are the ones who are responsible. I'll be damned if I accept any responsibility for their sadism. I think it is perversion to turn a program of concrete actions into some free-floating abstract concept.
You, treestar, are free to join these people in their responsibility if you like. Me, I'd spit on every person who took part in such obscenity if I could.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You are part of the collective. That is what the President was talking about. That's what he meant by "we."
Demit
(11,238 posts)It's never going to be true no matter how many times you say it.
By the way, you are only interpreting what the president said. So what I am rejecting is your fatuous interpretation, that the blame can be spread around to innocent people, who had no say in what happened. In fact, I think you do a disservice to the president, to put those words in his mouth.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Why would he even need to mention those doing their patriotic duty correctly were patriots. He's clearly referring to those who participated in renditions, torture and assassinations.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)The entire statement is a response to the pending release of the torture report.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
madokie
(51,076 posts)I take a lot of what I read about Obama and how bad he is with a grain of salt cause it almost always proves out to be false
ETA: a lot of times I just use the ignore feature so I won't have to wade though that kind of shit from that poster again. I'm not here to argue or to have to try to prove a point. I'm here to learn and maybe pass on a bit of wisdom myself.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts) KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)values'. We fucking broke the law. And it's unclear exactly whom Obama considers 'patriots'.
And I hate the insinuation that I'm being 'too sanctimonious' pointing out that we fucking broke the law.
WE. BROKE. THE. LAW.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is the difference between an attorney's (more precise) usage of language and that of non-attorneys.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)be an attorney to understand that salient fact:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101750.pdf (Emphasis in the original)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)an attorney would not make the leap that undefined/unsubstantiated conduct was "torture."
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)and international laws against torture or not?
I say there's strong probable cause they did.
What say you?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)especially, when I do not/cannot control the define of the term torture ... is two different things. (From an attorney's view)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)by Reagan and ratified by the U.S. Senate during George H.W. Bush's presidency and to which we are therefore signatories) spells out exactly what is prohibited:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/101750.pdf (p. 2, Emphasis added)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That is a non-definitive standard and the source of (legal) dispute ... with no close bright line.
(Mind you, I believe and would argue that everything that has been spelled out thus far, causes severe pain or suffering; but that does not remove the counter-argument, i.e., define severe ... distinguish between severe and less than severe.)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)of the U.S. commit acts that the U.S. prosecuted, convicted and hung German and Japanese officials for after World War II? If the answer to that question is "yes" (meaning a precedent was established), then I don't think a 'close bright line' is really necessary line, do you? Or would you argue that our war crimes tribunals after World War II were also problematic for the same reason (no 'close bright line')?
Don't mean to come off as hostile and I do apologize in advance if my tone suggests such. But I have the taste of ashes in my mouth and I don't fucking like it!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)it is the stuff of legal discussion.
I agree with your standard, though I suspect it doesn't cover half the stuff that was done to the detainees that we find/would find objectionable.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Cha
(297,026 posts)"sodimizers are torturers".
G_j
(40,366 posts)....tough job 
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)So when he said "we tortured some folks" and then said it's important for us not to feel to sanctimonious about the tough job "those folks had" he was actually not talking about anyone who tortured people. He was just talking about all the other "good" folks...
Thanks for clearing that up. It's very difficult to read between the lines and understand that what he said wasn't really what he meant...
Guess I'm a piece of shit used car salesman.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)I have a feeling I'm in good company. 
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)From another piece of shit!
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts) 840high
(17,196 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts) Aerows
(39,961 posts)
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)to prosecute known psychopathic criminality within their ranks.
I am one who says he called the torturers patriots.
In my view, here's how it goes:
Now this is easy to fix. Will he prosecute the torturers or continue to fail to prosecute psychopathy within his ranks, in effect, defending them from prosecution?
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Piece of shit car salesman checking in. Obama's ACTIONS speak much louder than his weasel words.
Iggo
(47,545 posts)Because he said they were patriots.
But if that's not what he meant, then fine then.
Autumn
(45,012 posts) RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Everyone knows that although President Obama is a decisive man of action, he tends to be rather clumsy when it comes to making speeches and statements.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)to "law enforcement and security teams". In other words, ALL law enforcement and ALL Security teams (military, CIA, etc). Of that group SOME of those people are patriots. You are the one trying to change the meaning. The police in the US don't have anything to do with prisoners overseas, would know nothing about it, and certainly weren't accessories to it. Your argument is false.
For Obama to have to have said that "torturers are patriots" all law enforcement and all security teams (the entire military and more) would have to be torturers. See the logic fail there?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)of law enforcement and security personnel who engaged in the torture.
Sure, you can try and parse the statement according to whatever semantic game you want to play, but it's still clear what the President said and meant.
Some things just aren't defensible, to the point that trying to defend the indefensible just makes one look silly.
okaawhatever
(9,461 posts)torture I would agree. He had gone on to talk about the country as a whole after 9-11 so it is clear he wasn't talking solely about the torture report anymore.
What is silly is people ignoring several comments in between the two statements to tie them together.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)He spoke about torture:
The very next thing he said was:
He then proceeds to explain "why {torture} happened":
That entire paragraph is an explanation for why people were tortured. According to the President,
1. People were afraid
2. There was enormous pressure on law enforcement and national security personnel to "deal with" the terrorist threat.
After presenting his reasoning, the President then instructs us not to judge the personnel who had to "deal with" the terrorist threat by torturing people, because they were "working hard under enormous pressure."
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)"and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this."
They somehow knew there would be no more attacks. Rumsfailed out on the Pentagon lawn helping victims instead of doing his job. Bush staying at an elementary school that was near an airport. No defending the White House or downtown DC. They knew there would be no more attacks. 40 minutes after the towers were hit, our biggest DEFENSE building gets attacked. But most are happy with that, and accept it.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)in the air and unaccounted for, the Secret Service allowed Bush to remain at that elementary school where his location was presumably a matter of public knowledge. That whole little interlude has never quite added up for me. At the time the second plane hit and with planes unaccounted for, the SS had absolutely no business allowing Bush to remain in public view.
Unless someone in a position of authority knew there would be no further attacks. Either that or the head of the presidential security detail should have been fired the next fucking day!
That's as far as I will go with this. But it is really creepy, isn't it?
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)Few on that thread agreed with me. Actually, no one did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5940544
was referring to the entire rest of the military that did not torture?
"a lot of those folks were working hard under enormous pressure and are real patriots"
Is that possible? Is it?
President Obama has never shown a hint of the cruelty you are suggesting.
It's difficult for me to see such venimous, black and white thinking on DU.
It trials were held for every single person suspected of being involved, I would expect some, possibly many, would be found to have been just the opposite - disgusted, unwilling, or forced to participate against their will.
Only a special kind of filth would be willing and enthusiastic to commit such atrocities.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)something to the effect that the U.S. government could crush a child's testicles and it wouldn't be illegal. I think that might also qualify. There need to be some war crimes trials and pronto. Start with the low-hanging fruit and make 'plea bargains' to roll up the higher-ups.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)I still can't believe this happened. I mean, I believe it, but I am horrified. It is a current day American Horror Story.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I was juror #7
On Thu Dec 11, 2014, 02:27 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Anyone who claims Obama called the torturers "patriots"...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025944987
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Nasty attack on her fellow DUers here.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 11, 2014, 03:14 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is a nasty attack indeed.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post itself is not offensive. The first line "f-ing piece of sh!! used car salesman" could be rephrased to remove the curse words. But hell, even I curse on DU occasionally.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What is the alert on this???
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How is this an attack on DUers?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Truth from Berni. It should not be hidden.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)silly alert.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)*marks on calendar becuase it won't happen again for a while.
Cha
(297,026 posts)They can say anything and that's just fine but they can't handle rebuttal.. That has to be fucking CENSORED.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Why would there be any looking down upon employees of the CIA who had nothing to do with torture?
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Another piece of shit used car salesman checking in
treestar
(82,383 posts)that includes you. As an American.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . so what was the point of the President's admonishment, if not to allow that at least some of the torturers were 'patriots?'
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Hekate
(90,616 posts)It's in the DU TOS, of course:
All DUers must be sanctimonious, get a prefrontal lobotomy so they forget who was in charge from 2001-2008, and approve torture that shatters human beings. 
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Of some very vague sentences. You don't think if he wanted to specifically exclude the torturers from his list of 'real patriots' that he couldn't have made it a bit more explicit?
Iggo
(47,545 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I don't think I'm the one doing the parsing here.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and the entire speech was about torture--not even about Rummy trying to use 9-11 as pretext for Iraq
also, he will never return your love, not the tiniest grain of it
go to your grave knowing that
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)as it's long been http://www.salon.com/2014/08/16/patriots_dont_break_laws_why_excusing_torture_is_an_american_catastrophe/ and is relying solely on the positive reinforcement from those of like mind who are equally incapable of....
MisterP
(23,730 posts)but that they leave them thinking that their decades-old cliches are some new revelation that'll send everyone else sprawling on the floor; the conservadems have insisted that "liburl intransigence" is what sank the party in 1972, and ever since then they've used money and administrative posts to fight to move the party to the right, really getting the ball rolling with the 1988 DLC and the 1994 swing right (Clinton had campaigned as a liberal)
this happens in any tiny faction that does nothing but read its own works (Discovery Institute, Cato Institute) or of one single person (the "Orwellian" Jehovah's Witnesses, Kersey Graves, al Qaeda, flat-earth colonies): they think nothing has changed since Alan Cranston or Alexander Hislop or Washington Irving or whoever, that no new analysis could ever improve on what's already been accepted
even their grammar ability's been warped by their love and isolation: they not only can't see that he was talking about torture and torturers, they think the rest of us are just going with the crowd, just citing each other because we're blinded by outrage, and need an OP to correct our collective ability to parse sentences
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)if we're to be "sprawled out" it'll certainly require more than what is obviously in this case, a distorted if not willfully dishonest deconstruction of what BHO said and the ditto-fest from those who share it. The latter is where they find their strength, not in the arguments they attempt to make, because as you noted, his effort was ALL about torture and torturers and providing cover for those torturers who might suffer from a dose of sanctimony.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's a Nazi-riddled asylum next door
the BOG not only gets to kick out anyone who says Obama isn't twice as anti-Wall Street as FDR (that's literally why I was removed) but gets to be called a "safe space" like they're victims of persecution instead of going around saying 80% of DUers are traitors because they dare to remember what was promised in 2008, or have a morality or expectation of results separate from how much meat is in the seats on Capitol Hill
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)I enjoy DI more than this place, if only because I don't have to be quite as nice to the kinda people we're talking about here.
I see little diff in the way the rightwingers there and the bogger types here defend their garbage and treat those "not like them". Like the rightwingers, they frequently make themselves the best witnesses for their own prosecution, which the stupid and strident defense of BHO in this case illustrates as well as any could.
This all looks more and more like the same garbage I battled the Clinton-lovers over long ago, in form if not susbstance. I think a lot of the denial has to do with the fact that they simply do not wanna believe/think that the guy they voted for twice is making excuses for torturers, like it somehow makes them similarly guilty -- if only vicarously.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)of lefties, but I don't *hate* DU 3.0--whenever someone descends from On High and lectures General Discussion about how we should've been as outraged as we were under Bush as we were under Obama and to go attend a Ron Paul rally if we disagree with them they get stomped on and picked apart to the best of everyone's abilities--there's 5 posts saying "bless you, you're the only one saying what needs to be said" from the same 5 DUers, and 300 posts by the other 30,000 mocking it
it's like Wikipedia: people keep trying to justify the El Mozote massacre and the other Editors who *aren't* fans of genocide have to keep an eye on it
that was one of the most pathetic posts I've read and responded to here on DU.
I've long thought what you're saying -- that they are in a distinct minority -- to be the case, which is a major reason why they rely so much on that kinda noise over substance.
Perhaps I haven't been paying enough attention, but I was under the impression that it was they that were undergoing an exodus.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)conservadems and Loyalists sounded more "plausible" when DU still worried about Nader or it was Fox beating the drum for war carrying the street protests in favor of the Mahmudiyah rape-murders; back then one could still say the Haditha murderers were just scared and only the longtime activists who remembered Vietnam and El Salvador were the ones who knew that that's common in such war and is still inexcusable
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)there's only one reason to even use rhetoric like "sanctimomious", or to reference things like "how afraid" people were, etc, to justify their rationalizations for or participation in the torturing.
The non-participants needed no defense for their actions.
elleng
(130,820 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)the ones who are constantly looking to pin something, anything on the President and misread his intentions and words make me fucking sick.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)is more fitting the "tortured" logic being sold in this OP.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)The "fucking piece of shit used car salesman" line is more fitting to all the posters today that keep on trying to twist and selectively edit what the president said to fit their lame attempt to once again try and make the president look bad, kind of like the fox news hosts do all the time.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)but his "sanctimonious" speech was stomach turning considering what we've done.
tridim
(45,358 posts)I'm seeing none of this crap because all of the DU fucking used car salesmen are on the list.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Obama gives a speech that can be interpreted in different ways. He's really good at that. Must be all that legal education.
The statement is kind of like an ink blot. What you see depends on your point of view.
Demit
(11,238 posts)When his students would ask him his opinion on something in the law, he was often ambiguous. They said you never knew where he stood. He might've been deliberately shielding his opinion—he is a very careful man—or it might've just meant that he didn't feel strongly enough either way. Funny, though, he sure was able to be unmistakably clear with calling it "sanctimonious" to condemn those who engaged in torture. I will never forget that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And sanctimony, as we have been told, is a crime worse than torture and rape. So watch that sanctimony!!!!
I remember when Obama talked about his 'faith' all the time. Where is that influence now? He was too ultra Christian to stand next to Gavin Newsom and now he's forgotten that Jesus said the treatment given to prisoners is given to Jesus himself. At least he does not mention 'God in the mix' as he would when attacking marriage equality. Why not? Isn't his God in his torture mix? Does his faith approve of forced rectal hydration of the Christ in chains? Or does it not?
Does Obama practice his 'faith' using bipartisan compromise with those who worship Moloch or what?
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Especially when Obama called it what it is: Torture. Even the report didn't use that word. Why? Because it's full of problems, legally both in the U.S. and Internationally. Obama used that word specifically and for a reason.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And that sort of proves my point. The President's words were ultra careful about a very clear evil. But when talking about gay people getting married his words flowed and included much mention of his own personal devotion. So yes, Berni, I expect to hear about his faith when he's talking about torture, Jesus actually was tortured, actually forbade mistreatment of any prisoner and never said a thing about me getting married.
Hekate
(90,616 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)What they give a shit about is that President Obama didn't prosecute ANY of them.
Consequences. There were none.
That is what chaps the ass of normal people. People go to jail over smoking pot, and are locked up for decades. Commit heinous war crimes, torture and "rectally feed" people? Sitting on easy street.
If you want to discuss some bullshit, there it is, right there, in all of its horrific, abysmal, indecent, extravagant "glory".
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)the Viet Nam war, and WW 1 & 2, Korea?
Torture was just as horrible then as it is now.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)No arguments here.
EDIT: And for reference, "He did it too!" is a weak excuse. If you are relegated to that defense, you are destitute of justification.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)I'm just pointing out that there wasn't much in the way of outrage toward the presidents in those times. It wasn't as if people didn't know that this stuff was going on then.
edit to add - I think Bush and Cheney both belong in jail for this, but I don't think that will happen.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)IS the "he did it too" excuse.
I know it's painful to admit when you are using it, but it doesn't change the fact that you are.
I like you, HappyMe, but get real.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)When that perception sinks in, it's not just going to be one Eric Garner deciding that listening to police orders "ends today." It's going to be everyone. And man, what a mess that's going to be.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-police-in-america-are-becoming-illegitimate-20141205?page=2
Simply substitute the phrase 'torture and war crimes' for 'coroner-declared homicide' and you and Taibbi could be speaking identically! But kudos to you for pointing out what badly needed saying.
Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
DMay This message was self-deleted by its author.
DMay
(22 posts)Good point, all he did was, make excuses for the war criminals, and let them off the hook? And I might add, the rapist, the killers, and perverts !
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)And he follows immediately with explaining why we can't be too sanctimonious in judging them: They were working hard and are real patriots.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)when he called them patriots. He just forgot the words and called them our National Security Teams (well actually Bush's) and our law enforcement ( I take that to mean Bush's CIA and FBI) otherwise I think Obama would have called them police officers cause he's good at words and shit like that.
Bonus if anyone can remember the "folks" on Bush's National Security Team. I got Rice and Rumsfeld and I drew a blank on the other "folks"
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Parse it however you like its shameful shit coming from an alleged Democrat. Ts me idgaf anymore.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So we are all responsible.
Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it crystal clear who were the patriots AND WHO WERE THE CRIMINALS.
Every bit of his quote is terrible. "We did some things that were contrary to our values." We did some things? What things Mr. President? Did we torture people to death? Did we torture children? Did we torture people until they became insane? These things are not just contrary to our values, they are illegal and horrible. These things made our country into MONSTERS in the view of the rest of the world. These things provided justification for the terrorists to continue their terror.
"I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell and the Pentagon had been hit and the plane in Pennsylvania had fallen, and people did not know whether more attacks were imminent, and there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this."
Action was needed, but we have people that are trained to know what to do. These rational people were forced by the monsters among us, like Cheney, to round people up and start torturing them, not because it would be of benefit, but because it looked good to the Conservative and because the monsters among us get off on that. That's why it happened. The President's attempt to justify these horrible acts is contemptible at best and complicit at worst.
Being "sanctimonious" won't help, but we must look back and give the patriots credit and hold the criminal monsters accountable.
Maybe it's too much to ask that Pres Obama hold those monsters among us accountable for violating laws and torturing people, at least he should condemn their actions and spare us the mollification speeches.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)as one of the most powerful. Hope to read more of your work.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)in New DU Group called: Reading Comprehension Classes. Sign up now, classes are getting full, fast.
No, it is not about anything else. It is exactly as it states. Reading Comprehension Classes.
• It is not the Monopoly game where you can take a ride on the Reading and just make shit up about what words mean.
• It is not about the Classes war,
• It is about understanding the written and spoken word, especially when they are writ and spoke by President Barack Hussein Obama, who has never to my knowledge ever even hinted as to be so evil he would call torturers Patriots. What a load of for anyone to believe this compassionate and intelligent man is of the same cloth as Cheney and his Pet Chimp. How absolutely disgusting and unworthy of a place that dares call itself Democratic anything.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)because some of us don't believe what the haters think they heard the President said.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Faux has nothing on this bunch.
sheshe2
(83,708 posts)Sad isn't it. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they hate this President with a passion and always will. DU has been a depressing place to come to for awhile now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They really expect us to believe President Obama is in favor of torture and have glommed onto one paragraph to do it.
Yet that one paragraph admits we as a nation did it. If he really were as evil as Cheney, he'd be denying it was torture.
Christ on a Trailer Hitch, this place is disgusting at times like this.
Cha
(297,026 posts)of hate.
There's someone else going on about "torturing some folks" is the same calibre as "mistakes were made"..
"Mistakes were made" is a goddamn lie.. It was done on Purpose with full intent.. and they LIed their heads off to make it happen. We did actually fucking torture some folks.
But, hey.. the same ODS crowd thinks.. hey, why not?
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)holy shit. I guess I was wrong about President Obama all this time. HE'S JUST LIKE BOOSH BUT WORSE AND FOLKSY!
Cha
(297,026 posts)mcar
(42,287 posts)I cannot believe what I'm reading on this board today.
brush
(53,758 posts)for posting this.
What is it with these people here that look to anything they can to bash this president?
You'd think you were on some winger site with these people claiming this president would call torturers patriots.
There are enough torturers from the W admin and obstructionists in this admin to jump all over but they seem so hyped to just go after this president.
Makes you wonder if there is some latent racism operating here that maybe they aren't even aware of.
Or maybe they are.
DawgHouse
(4,019 posts)BootinUp
(47,135 posts)maybe thats a clue.
Cha
(297,026 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'll hold judgment until then.
The sin of doing nothing to stop a crime isn't as bad as committing the crime, but to the victims of that crime, a mouse could starve on the difference.
Cha
(297,026 posts)Normally, this wouldn't have to be pointed out but this is DU.
Demit
(11,238 posts)If the OP has evidence of this—the objections, the protests, the resignations—this would be a good time to cite it. Especially since there "were a lot of them."
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)WTF is this nonsense. The abuses were ongoing through the Bush administration and are part and parcel of the counter insurgency strategy implemented by petreaus.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Or did you pull it out of thin air? I sure never heard that they did.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)There are many more stories like this. But you choose to see what you want, mmmkay?
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Things that make me go Hmmmmmm.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)to find out the nurse refused to force-feed hunger-striking detainees under Obama's watch.
Concluding observations on the third to fifth periodic reports of United States of America
ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/USA/INT_CAT_COC_USA_18893_E.pdf
While noting the explanations provided by the State party concerning the conditions of detention at Guantanamo, the Committee remains concerned about the secrecy surrounding conditions of confinement, especially in Camp 7 where high-value detainees are housed. It also notes the studies received on the cumulative effect that the conditions of detention and treatment in Guantanamo have had on the psychological health of detainees. There have been nine deaths in Guantanamo during the period under review, including seven suicides. In this respect, another cause of concern is the repeated suicide attempts and recurrent mass hunger strike protests by detainees over indefinite detention and conditions of detention. In this connection, the Committee considers that force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike constitutes ill-treatment in violation of the Convention. Furthermore, it notes that detainees’ lawyers have argued in court that force feedings are allegedly administered in an unnecessarily brutal and painful manner (arts. 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16).
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)I mean you have to be gooo - oood at pitching bullshit to get to this strange place you are trying to reach here along with some creative linguistics and more than a little added content to build that bridge to nowhere.
Hekate
(90,616 posts)... in order to trash this POTUS.
This is more of the stinking legacy of BushCheney.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)That he is minimizing the torturers actions and floating excuses for them. Ffs I can't even believe the ops level of spin. I am getting close to the FDU towel throw.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)us "safe."
Cha
(297,026 posts)even though the OP self deleted that piece of garbage. Who knows why.. maybe because it was being used on right wing hate sites?
Thank you again, berni
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Seriously ridiculous too, as neither Obama nor Brennan conducted torture or condoned it, and in fact they ended it, but as usual the Obama admin is taking heat for Bushler depravities.
And I'm not surprised to see my own Senator Feinstein carrying water for the neocons. Third-Way Udall doesn't surprise me either because he is, in fact, an actual Third Wayer. But how the cryptos love him. Warning, major hypocrisy storm approaching, better take cover.
Cha
(297,026 posts)happen. Typical DU hate infested bullshite.. did you know "tortured some folks" is the equivalent of "mistakes were made"?
According to some **** on DU it is.. "mistakes were made" was a gd lie.. they lied to make it happen. We actually did torture some folks.. but don't let that stop them from frothing at the mouth.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)The hypocrisy is completely obvious, and you know what? "Sanctimonious" was EXACTLY the right word.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
Cha
(297,026 posts)uncle ray
(3,155 posts)those nice boys, the Koch Bros took care of that problem for you by getting the well known progressive Cory Gardner elected.
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)The ODS is strong here.
Marr
(20,317 posts)The meaning of the statement is crystal clear. He's minimizing the crimes of the torturers and making excuses for them. In essence, 'their intentions were good, let's move on'. It's pretty plain english.
To see these people painfully contort his words to mean something else, then clap for each like seals, assuring one another that is indeed what he meant after all... it's just creepy.
Cha
(297,026 posts) U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)I thought only Rethugs operated without a critical eye...I was wrong.
Face it, Obama made excuses for torturers....I'm sorry if that makes you
Cha
(297,026 posts)the President says "sodomizers are patriots" are so fucking stupid it says everything about the scribes and absolutely nothing about Obama.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)POSS
Piece of Shit Syndrome
Don't tread on me!
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts) LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Good grief, I've been accused of adoration and fanclubber and all sorts of adjectives because I respect Obama. And this is somehow worse than being a follower and declaring oneself a piece of shit just to follow the original piece of shit.
People are funny, and I do mean ha ha funny. *points and laughs. Maybe this can be their logo:
with letterhead and 24 hour business cards and all that fancy stuff.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Lining up one by one in chest-thumping agreement. Another one of those classic 
moments.
That logo, btw......heh.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts) LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)I'm not sure what happens to them after the 24 business hours is up tho....
but I'm pretty sure Karl Rove doesn't go to jail!
Cha
(297,026 posts)shite. Especially when the OP self deleted.. oooops. Oh no, NO ODS.. not there.. move along now.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)People complain about DI but I don't see how the ODS could get any thicker right here.
William769
(55,144 posts)mike_c
(36,279 posts)...or suggest that the ends justified the means. After all, his Justice Dept investigated, then rounded up all the bad apples who weren't "patriots" and prosecuted them for war crimes, and now they're languishing in prison where they belong.
Oh, wait....
Aerows
(39,961 posts)is a train wreck of dubious justifications and trying to backtrack that what President Obama said isn't what President Obama said.
It's the definition of what "is" is, updated for contemporary audiences!
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)We were told not to be sanctimonious even though some scared patriots had "tortured some folks"...
I see nowhere in that direct quote that makes the distinction you claim is obvious.
There's a "fucking used car salesman" in this thread alright... but it isn't whom you suggest....
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)even by the cheerleaders.
What has become of this place?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Watch what they do because they'll say anything.
Cha
(297,026 posts)him.. look around.
But, he fucking didn't say the "sodomizers were patriots".
treestar
(82,383 posts)The entire statement is an admission that it happened, that bad things happened and even torture. Republicans would never have admitted that. Or regretted it the way that statement does. Or admitted it violates our values. They'd keep doing it.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And the silence of no one disagreeing with them. 
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts) berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)I just still find it so very, very interesting to see the crowd rushing to this thread to call THEMSELVES pieces of shit. I mean, seriously.
There is NO context where that phrase is something reasonable/intelligent people would choose to have themselves associated with it, which makes the lack of disagreement from everybody else that much more hilarious.
LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)LawDeeDah
(1,596 posts)Jappleseed
(93 posts)He was only referring to the good folks?
Scuba
(53,475 posts)BootinUp
(47,135 posts)blaming everyone in the CIA, in government period. Sort of why this thread was posted.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There are people who did things we don't like short of torture. Not everything is so black and white.
Claiming that statement shows Obama's support of torture proves the person is simply looking for something to grouse above.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)Thanks for your concern.
*
*
* Jeebus!!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And silence the truth.
It's not new, many have used it successfully before.
Ie: dictatorial East Europe, where you were a criminal if you spoke your mind or disagreed with the President.
( lived it, that's how I know )
But WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY, AND WE CAN SPEAK OUR MIND AND DISAGREE WITH POLITICIANS. It's our constitutional right.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The fact that their attacks only help the Republicans & the people actually responsible for the torture, they don't care about.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Criticizing his words doesn't mean we try to "tarnish" him.
It's our right to criticise.
This is a democracy, not a dictatorialship.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Our Democratic President is being criticized by rat-fuckers for words he didn't say, for things he didn't mean, and for things he didn't do.
SOP.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Don't stick your head in the sand. Deal with it.
bigtree
(85,984 posts)12 Years of #CIA Lawlessness: More than a decade after the Torture Memos, America still awaits accountability. https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-human-rights/happy-anniversary-cia-12-years-lawlessness … @ACLU
____ Incredibly, more than 200 CIA employees who were involved in the torture program are today still employed at the CIA. The acting general counsel of the CIA until this past March was the very same person who had been one of the CIA's top torture lawyers a decade ago . . .
read more: https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-human-rights/happy-anniversary-cia-12-years-lawlessness
related:
With all the interference by the Obama CIA in the torture report, we’ll need another investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025928844
bigtree
(85,984 posts)Pres. Obama included the line about 'patriots' in the same paragraph expressing 'understanding' about why it happened. It may well have been inartful to include the remark in that paragraph, but, with all of the political-speak from those we elect to tell the truth, and a clear history of politicians, including Obama, parsing language to cover their asses, no one out here in the discerning public should be faulted for interpreting his remarks as an excuse for torturing.
He expressed in the same paragraph how 'afraid' people were; how 'people did not know whether more attacks were imminent;' how 'there was enormous pressure on our law enforcement and our national security teams to try to deal with this.' All of those can be fairly read and interpreted as justification for the actions.
However...politicians aren't always perfect orators. In the same statement, Pres. Obama went to unprecedented lengths (for an official of his stature) to call the practices what they were: 'tortures.' He'd said this before, and he has been clear that he finds some of the practices revealed objectionable and against our values or national interest.
What's not acknowledged, though, by this opportunistic and subjective attack on those who read into his remarks and concluded he was trying to have it both ways - objecting to tortures and excusing the past administration for ordering and participating in them - is that there was, at the time, no real accounting by the government of these practices; not from the White House or from Congress. Anyone looking on should be excused for being skeptical of any comment appearing to dismiss the responsibility, complicity, or criminal culpability of the past administration.
Indeed, for anyone who has bothered to remain informed, the Obama administration has resisted the disclosures since 2009 in an attempt to obscure the justifications and assumed authority the Bush administration used to authorize the practices.
from Marcy Wheeler (Some Torture Facts):
(12) Obama’s role in covering up the Bush White House’s role in torture has received far too little attention. But Obama’s White House actually successfully intervened to reverse Judge Alvin Hellerstein’s attempt to release to ACLU a short phrase making it clear torture was done pursuant to a Presidential Finding. So while Obama was happy to have CIA’s role in torture exposed, he went to great lengths, both with that FOIA, with criminal discovery, and with the Torture Report, to hide how deeply implicated the Office of the President was in torture.
This White House appears to be holding onto many of the more egregious of abuses that we’re decrying about the last one; notably, the continued renditions; the continued use of other nations to carry out acts on behalf of our nation in the name of ‘national security’ which our own country has either outlawed or has determined objectionable conduct; detentions interrogations on vessels in international waters and other 'black sites'.
The very same strategy for authorization of military and intelligence activity against targets believed associated with al-Qaeda which was engineered by George Tenet, Cofer Black, and Dick Cheney, has been used by President Obama to justify his ordering of drone strikes and renditions. They have a definite basis in the 2001 AUMF, as admitted by Obama's CIA chief nominee Brennan in his 2013 hearing, but the assumed authority is based in memorandums of understanding which are used as 'notifications' of Congress for blanket authority to conduct operations - operations like the drone strikes which increased under the Obama administration.
from Marcy Wheeler: 'White House Has Been Covering Up the Presidency’s Role in Torture for Years'
As other documents and reporting have made clear, the source of authority was a September 17, 2001 Presidential declaration authorizing not just detention and interrogation, but a range of other counterterrorism activities, including targeted killings.
Both former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo have made clear that the torture program began as a covert operation. “A few days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush signed a top-secret directive to CIA authorizing an unprecedented array of covert actions against Al Qaeda and its leadership.” Rizzo explained in 2011. One of those actions, Rizzo went on, was “the capture, incommunicado detention and aggressive interrogation of senior Al Qaeda operatives.”
As Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, noted in 2009 – shortly after Hayden revealed that torture started as a covert operation – this means there should be a paper trail implicating President Bush in the torture program. “There should be a Presidential ‘finding’ authorizing the program,” he said, “and such a finding should have been provided to Congressional overseers.”
...there is evidence that those Congressional overseers were never told that the finding the president signed on September 17, 2001 authorized torture. For example, a letter from then ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, to the CIA’s General Counsel following her first briefing on torture asked: “Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the President?” The CIA’s response at the time was simply that “policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the Executive Branch.”
Nevertheless, the finding does exist. The CIA even disclosed its existence in response to the ACLU FOIA, describing it as “a 14-page memorandum dated 17 September 2001 from President Bush to the Director of the CIA pertaining to the CIA’s authorization to detain terrorists.” In an order in the ACLU suit, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein confirmed that the declaration was “intertwined with” the administration’s effort to keep the language in the Tenet document hidden. When the Obama administration succeeded in keeping that short phrase secret, all effort to release the declaration also ended...
What’s not understandable is why President Obama sees a need to cover for the previous administration – not unless you consider that his own might well have engaged in some of the same abuses. Despite all of the talk from Obama about his own torture reforms and remedies there are reports that torture has continued with significant loopholes in his executive order outlawing some of the objectionable practices. Indeed, many torturous actions by the military, such as 'force-feeding' of prisoners at GITMO and sleep-deprivation practices are not subjects of his executive order and are actively being appealed in court.
Moreover, notwithstanding an act by Congress in revising existing legislation or passing new legislation specifically outlawing the objectionable practices outlawed by President Obama’s executive order, those torture policies and practices remain up to the discretion of the person in the White House.
In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder closed without charges the only two cases the Obama administration chose to investigate that involved Bush’s torture program. What Holder’s decision represented was the last word by the Obama administration on actually bringing accountability and consequence to the actions of the Bush-era torturers; a negligent act which many feel decriminalized the past practices.
It’s disturbing to hear President Obama actually offering his own justifications for torture practices and policies he’s already identified as far outside or constitution or our national conscience. It’s chilling to see that even a summary of that report – in effect, itself auguring an inadequate and incomplete accounting to the American people – is being redacted in such a ‘significant’ way by one of the partners to those abuses; now an integral partner to this President’s representation of the only significant and extensive official accounting of all of that.
However... President Obama did not make a similar statement in his response to the release of the torture report - perhaps well aware of the appearance or interpretation by some that he'd excused away the practices revealed in his earlier comments.
In this new statement, he makes clear that, notwithstanding the efforts he found necessary or prudent in the wake of the 9-11 attacks, and the 'patriots' who made those efforts, the tortures reported were 'contrary to our values,' 'troubling,' 'harsh,' and 'did significant damage to America’s standing in the world.'
Obama responds to the Senate report on the CIA:
Throughout our history, the United States of America has done more than any other nation to stand up for freedom, democracy, and the inherent dignity and human rights of people around the world. As Americans, we owe a profound debt of gratitude to our fellow citizens who serve to keep us safe, among them the dedicated men and women of our intelligence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency. Since the horrific attacks of 9/11, these public servants have worked tirelessly to devastate core al Qaeda, deliver justice to Osama bin Laden, disrupt terrorist operations and thwart terrorist attacks. Solemn rows of stars on the Memorial Wall at the CIA honor those who have given their lives to protect ours. Our intelligence professionals are patriots, and we are safer because of their heroic service and sacrifices.
In the years after 9/11, with legitimate fears of further attacks and with the responsibility to prevent more catastrophic loss of life, the previous administration faced agonizing choices about how to pursue al Qaeda and prevent additional terrorist attacks against our country. As I have said before, our nation did many things right in those difficult years. At the same time, some of the actions that were taken were contrary to our values. That is why I unequivocally banned torture when I took office, because one of our most effective tools in fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe is staying true to our ideals at home and abroad.
Today’s report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence details one element of our nation’s response to 9/11—the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, which I formally ended on one of my first days in office. The report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects in secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our national security interests. Moreover, these techniques did significant damage to America’s standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners. That is why I will continue to use my authority as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again.
As Commander in Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the safety and security of the American people. We will therefore continue to be relentless in our fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and other violent extremists. We will rely on all elements of our national power, including the power and example of our founding ideals. That is why I have consistently supported the declassification of today’s report. No nation is perfect. But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better. Rather than another reason to refight old arguments, I hope that today’s report can help us leave these techniques where they belong—in the past. Today is also a reminder that upholding the values we profess doesn’t make us weaker, it makes us stronger and that the United States of America will remain the greatest force for freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known.
That's not nearly as critical as I would be in describing the horrendous and barbaric practices described in the summary released of the Senate report, but it's also does not contain any hint of support for those who carried those practices out. That's a small concession, I think, to those who view his earlier remarks as an excuse; and, perhaps, a position which will enable him to support actions by the legislature to actually outlaw those practices beyond his ephemeral and incomplete executive order.
related:
Remi Brulin @RBrulin 2h2 hours ago
The memo that gave Bush "plausible deniability" re: torture gives it to Obama re: drones http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/12/from-bush-to-obama-eyes-wide-shut-torture-drones/ … by @emptywheel
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Unfortunately, I wouldn't invite those people who lie about the President at this forum in to my house.
Those people will have their hands full criticizing the President for the next 2 years while the Republicans in Congress run roughshod over him.
They will be here, posting their asses off every day, cheering on the Republicans.
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)and covered with their horse manure masquerading as a blog.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Torturing "some folks" it's a pretty big deal, Mr President.
Why not call it for what it is??? It's illegal, it's even a crime , under Genevas laws. So stop trying to smooth it out.
Logical
(22,457 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
No, no one who was aware of torture and abuse was "working hard" nor they were patriots.
Hey Logical, do you remember 2007-8? Do you remember when PBO was elected?? The tears of happines, the hugs we were giving each other, complete strangers...
Some things I may be able to forgive, but not excuses for torture. Or saying those who did it were patriots.
Fuck no.
Logical
(22,457 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)if read that way. Of all the things for people to get thrown into a fit and pretzels to defend, this is a pathetic one.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Absolute effing bullshit...the full quote confirms he meant those who tortured...he is saying that those who tortured were simply people trying to do a tough job and were patriots...no, the fact is they were sadistic assholes who fulfilled their sickest fantasies and called it national security.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)when John McCain, who more than anyone should know about torture, is more honest than President Obama and those who excuse the President for not indicting and trying the torturers.
If that doesn't chill you to the bone, and recognize that you are way into the weeds when John McCain can call you out with credibility, you've lost your damn way.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)even in the worst case interpretation, the statement only puts the actions in context. The context was "shock and awe". We dropped 800 tons of high explosives on a city of 4 million people in an evening in a country that was not involved in 9/11 for no apparent good reason. Most of us (+/- 80%) cheered. This is the context.
I would support prosecution for this stuff, but I would not stop at torture.
All that said, we have known of the torture for many years, probably a decade at this point. There were no mass protests in the streets demanding resignations / high level prosecutions when the photos first came out, as unfortunate as that is.
The notion that Americans were largely indifferent to supportive of all of this can be seen in our lack of action at the time.
There are the "values" we "believe" in, and then there are the values we act on. The values we act on make us far less than exceptional.