If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   A two-year independent commission has concluded that, yes, people were tortured by the US government in the years following 9/11, and that "top officials" are responsible   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 444
    More: Obvious, Torture and the United States, United States, harsh interrogation, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Air Force bases, Mohammed Qahtani, Le Monde, USS Cole  
•       •       •

6274 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2013 at 9:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



444 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-16 05:06:10 PM
dick cheney needs to be tried by the ICC for this.
 
2013-04-16 05:14:57 PM

FlashHarry: dick cheney needs to be tried by the ICC for this.


none of the people involved will ever see the inside of a jail cell.
 
2013-04-16 05:15:07 PM
And that means Dick
 
2013-04-16 05:17:02 PM
Top. Officials.
 
2013-04-16 05:21:25 PM

FlashHarry: dick cheney needs to be tried by the ICC for this.


He's having dinner at 10 Downing st. tonight, maybe they'll nab him.
 
2013-04-16 05:31:52 PM

johnryan51: FlashHarry: dick cheney needs to be tried by the ICC for this.

He's having dinner at 10 Downing st. tonight, maybe they'll nab him.


Only if they take him to the hospital for appendicitis.
 
2013-04-16 05:34:09 PM
Nothing is going to happen to the Bush admin crew for this because that'd mean Obama and his crew would get in trouble, too. They like having that power just as much as Bush did.
 
2013-04-16 05:46:43 PM
I'm sure we'll be issuing arrest warrants right away, right? After all, Martha Stewart went to prison. Lil Wayne went to prison. Wesley Snipes went to prison. Lindsay Lohan went to prison.

Bush and Cheney will spend less time in prison than any of the above criminals.
 
2013-04-16 05:57:19 PM
So tell me how you really feel about our Government gone rogue and the untouchable criminals within.
 
2013-04-16 06:23:11 PM

dj_bigbird: Nothing is going to happen to the Bush admin crew for this because that'd mean Obama and his crew would get in trouble, too. They like having that power just as much as Bush did.


Both sides are bad, so vote "not guilty?"
 
2013-04-16 07:00:10 PM

dj_bigbird: Nothing is going to happen to the Bush admin crew for this because that'd mean Obama and his crew would get in trouble, too. They like having that power just as much as Bush did.


It's not that, I don't think, as much as it is that no President, whose job description entails making really hard life or death decisions, wants to worry that they will go to jail for making an executive decision.

Think about decisions that Presidents have made that were flat out wrong or debatably criminal:

FDR - Japanese detention
Truman - dropping the bombs
Kennedy - Bay of Pigs, Assassination attempts of Castro
Johnson - manufacturing the Gulf of Tonkin incident
Nixon - Enough said
Reagan - Iran-Contra

And those are just the ones I can come up with off the top of my head. I'd wager every President, and certainly every President who had to make war time decisions, had to make decisions that were questionably legal. Presidents know that they have to make those decisions and have always had an unwritten agreement that you don't go after your predecessors after you take office, and that's because you don't want the next guy coming after you.

Not saying this is necessarily the best or right way to do it, but it's not because the President tacitly agrees with the other guy, it's that they don't want to be prosecuted by the next guy.
 
2013-04-16 07:06:04 PM

nmrsnr: Not saying this is necessarily the best or right way to do it, but it's not because the President tacitly agrees with the other guy, it's that they don't want to be prosecuted by the next guy.


Or they could, you know... NOT BREAK THE LAW.
Sorry, is that fuelish to expect?
 
2013-04-16 07:14:02 PM

Rev.K: Top. Officials.


this is what I came to say. good job.
 
2013-04-16 07:18:03 PM

cwick: Or they could, you know... NOT BREAK THE LAW.Sorry, is that fuelish to expect?


sorry, is there a pun there that I'm missing?

But in answer, do you think every one of them I mentioned broke the law? Some people would. Should we automatically hold a trial for every President after they leave office to see if they did? My point is EVERY President makes questionable decisions, it's part of the job description. Presidents have therefore given each other a sort of immunity out of self preservation. Not saying it's right, just saying it is.
 
2013-04-16 08:05:17 PM
Subby, they have had many, many years to think about what they did, and the many long, dark, sleepless nights they've undoubtedly spent alone with their restless consciences is a punishment far greater than any something as trivial as "criminal justice" might seek to impose on them. For in the end, it is a person's own self who is capable of inflicting the most self-harm. There is no reason, none, for petty retribution at this point, actions that would be, in fact, motivated by little more than the barbaric behavior in which these very acts of torture were themselves rooted. Would you become the torturer you claim to despise, all in the name of "justice?" I hope you would not sink so low. I hope you would not choose to lose yourself in such a base manner. Let these poor, broken wretches spend their lives amid the flotsam and jetsam of their shattered selves, and move on. Live your life. Relish in the fact that you will never have to stare into the abyss that now holds them in its gaze. Move on, and be grateful.
 
2013-04-16 08:10:01 PM
As much as I don't blame Obama for this, I partially do. His complete refusal to look at these matters has reduced torture from a crime to a mere policy disagreement. And for that his presidency will always have a stain.
 
2013-04-16 08:12:45 PM
"yes, people were tortured by the US government in the years following 9/11 "


SO
 
2013-04-16 08:18:10 PM
Hutchinson also authored a report for the National Rifle Association arguing that the United States should put more armed guards in schools to keep children safe following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn. He has announced that he is running for governor of Arkansas in 2014.

That is where I realized this report will generate absolutely zero follow-up.
 
2013-04-16 08:23:46 PM

DamnYankees: As much as I don't blame Obama for this, I partially do. His complete refusal to look at these matters has reduced torture from a crime to a mere policy disagreement. And for that his presidency will always have a stain.


Obama knows he'll be out of office one day and eventually a Republican will be in the White House. He's just looking the other way hoping the favor will be returned

What would be epic is if the Republicans really tried to impeach him for Benghazi or whatever they pretend to be shocked about and he returned the favor by going after the Bush Administration
 
2013-04-16 08:47:58 PM
"The United States may not declare a nation guilty of engaging in torture and then exempt itself from being so labeled for similar if not identical conduct."

I believe they're entitled to, under the bipartisan It's Okay When We Do It, But Not Those Other Guys Doctrine.
 
2013-04-16 08:58:11 PM
We thought at the time it was the right thing to do.

There is no excuse for abandoning our principles in that time. We let emotion overcome us in hysteria and fear.

I myself was in favor of torture once. I was a young man who bought wholesale without independent thought from those who I should not have been listening to. I do feel a bit of shame about that.

/CSB time: I was in a battalion that was part of the 205th MI BDE. When our brigade went from Balad to Abu Ghraib my unit was one of the few of the brigade who stayed behind. I rarely used the brigade patch for my combat patch. I usually substitute it with the 504th MI patch.
 
2013-04-16 09:03:40 PM
Sure...next you'll be telling me that Iraq had no WMD
 
2013-04-16 09:12:17 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Sure...next you'll be telling me that Iraq had no WMD


They weren't under the sofa?
 
2013-04-16 09:14:32 PM
No shiat, Sherlock.

Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" and Obama's refusal to prosecute war crimes were the first big indications that we weren't going to get the change we hoped for.
 
2013-04-16 09:16:50 PM

nmrsnr: cwick: Or they could, you know... NOT BREAK THE LAW.Sorry, is that fuelish to expect?

sorry, is there a pun there that I'm missing?

But in answer, do you think every one of them I mentioned broke the law? Some people would. Should we automatically hold a trial for every President after they leave office to see if they did? My point is EVERY President makes questionable decisions, it's part of the job description. Presidents have therefore given each other a sort of immunity out of self preservation. Not saying it's right, just saying it is.


Wasn't there a Roman tradition of having every consul answer for his actions in a trial once he left office?

nmrsnr: dj_bigbird: Nothing is going to happen to the Bush admin crew for this because that'd mean Obama and his crew would get in trouble, too. They like having that power just as much as Bush did.

It's not that, I don't think, as much as it is that no President, whose job description entails making really hard life or death decisions, wants to worry that they will go to jail for making an executive decision.

Think about decisions that Presidents have made that were flat out wrong or debatably criminal:

FDR - Japanese detention
Truman - dropping the bombs
Kennedy - Bay of Pigs, Assassination attempts of Castro
Johnson - manufacturing the Gulf of Tonkin incident
Nixon - Enough said
Reagan - Iran-Contra

And those are just the ones I can come up with off the top of my head. I'd wager every President, and certainly every President who had to make war time decisions, had to make decisions that were questionably legal. Presidents know that they have to make those decisions and have always had an unwritten agreement that you don't go after your predecessors after you take office, and that's because you don't want the next guy coming after you.

Not saying this is necessarily the best or right way to do it, but it's not because the President tacitly agrees with the other guy, it's that they don't want to be prosecuted by the next guy.


What FDR and Truman did were actions within a war.  Perhaps the closest analogy to Bush 43 on that list is Johnson.  Both administrations manipulated, misrepresented, and possibly fabricated evidence for their own casus belli.

Basically, you can argue that it's far easier and less morally ambiguous to demand someone answer jus ad bellum than jus in bello.
 
2013-04-16 09:18:04 PM
Obama's fault
 
2013-04-16 09:20:12 PM
I'm somewhat saddened by the fact that this doesn't surprise me even one tiny bit.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-16 09:34:06 PM
I assume that this is the Rick Romero commission?
 
2013-04-16 09:46:48 PM
indiana-jones-and-raiders-of-lost-ark.trailertheater.com

Top. Officials.
 
2013-04-16 09:48:20 PM
The investigation happened during the Obama administration, that means  he's responsible.

or something
 
2013-04-16 09:49:18 PM
I'm sure that they're all VERY sorry.

Well, glad that's over.

So, what's for dinner?
 
2013-04-16 09:49:32 PM

vpb: I assume that this is the Rick Romero commission?


It was actually a joint venture with N. S. Sherlock institute.
 
2013-04-16 09:49:40 PM
So, just who are these people who released this report, and what exactly distinguishes them from the bridge club of retirees that meets at the local library?
 
2013-04-16 09:50:53 PM

UNC_Samurai: What FDR and Truman did were actions within a war.  Perhaps the closest analogy to Bush 43 on that list is Johnson.  Both administrations manipulated, misrepresented, and possibly fabricated evidence for their own casus belli.Basically, you can argue that it's far easier and less morally ambiguous to demand someone answer jus ad bellum than jus in bello.


It depends what we are analogizing/demanding someone answer for. In terms of the call to war, clearly Johnson/Bush is the most apt comparison, but as for the call that torture and indefinite detention is acceptable policy, that seems more like FDR and Japanese detention is the closest analogy, maybe Lincoln and the suspension of Habeas Corpus.

But the point is, do we think that FDR (had he survived) should have been tried for the detention of Japanese Americans? Or do we just ask that future Presidents allow us to bring to light all that happened, and let us determine whether or not we will ever allow a president to engage in such actions in the future?
 
2013-04-16 09:51:22 PM

Weaver95: FlashHarry: dick cheney needs to be tried by the ICC for this.

none of the people involved will ever see the inside of a jail cell.



If we tried everyone who was complicit in either the crimes, the coverup, or simply ignoring / distracting, we'd have no one left to "govern".
 
2013-04-16 09:51:39 PM
decineastas.com
 
2013-04-16 09:51:51 PM
Meanwhile, Dubya paints a new picture of him making fart bubbles in the bubble bath and laughs to himself.
 
2013-04-16 09:52:05 PM
I was in Canada when Abu Ghraib came out. I was really embarrassed to go to classes. I didn't mind the questions, but damn, I know how it felt to be Mexican after the 9/11 attacks.

/if you don't get it, I can't help you
 
2013-04-16 09:54:20 PM

dj_bigbird: Nothing is going to happen to the Bush admin crew for this because that'd mean Obama and his crew would get in trouble, too. They like having that power just as much as Bush did.


What? US government tortured people under Obama?

[citation please]
 
2013-04-16 09:54:22 PM
And nothing will ever happen to anyone.  And we will all accept it.
 
2013-04-16 09:55:45 PM
cretinbob: Obama's fault


"The report is a rebuke to President Barack Obama's opposition to investigating torture under the Bush administration. As he said in an interview following his election in 2008, Obama has advocated "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backward."


With any luck, the next president will also show the standard courtesy of holding their predecessors unaccountable - for ANYTHING.


/Going down?
 
2013-04-16 09:57:07 PM
i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-16 09:57:34 PM
WTF... 40+ posts and no one has mentioned Rumsfeld yet.
 
2013-04-16 09:57:38 PM

nmrsnr: Think about decisions that Presidents have made that were flat out wrong or debatably criminal:


Yes, saving Japan from forty years of Soviet occupation was criminal.

Were you dropped?
 
2013-04-16 09:58:24 PM

ISO15693: WTF... 40+ posts and no one has mentioned Rumsfeld yet.


Or that shiat stinks?
 
2013-04-16 09:58:31 PM
weird, the report comes out the same time as the bombings? false flag indeed Mr. West
 
2013-04-16 09:58:43 PM
it did not lead to the capture Osama Bin Laden

We captured Bin Laden?
 
2013-04-16 09:58:54 PM

FlashHarry: dick cheney needs to be tried by the ICC for this.


and hanged
 
2013-04-16 09:59:00 PM
Gee, ya think?
 
2013-04-16 09:59:11 PM

Ishkur: [indiana-jones-and-raiders-of-lost-ark.trailertheater.com image 480x360]

Top. Officials.


Came for this, leaving satisfied
 
Displayed 50 of 444 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report