Obama supports torture....

[RRocket]

Well...I think this is enough for me to start REALLY disliking Obama. I thought he was off to a good start with his decision on cleaning up/closing Gitmo. However, Obama has decided to stay the course on the whole "state secret" thing (a line that Democrats in the Senate vehemently opposed while Bush was in office). Obama has also been very critical of the Bush administration for the "rendition" policy; the policy of kidnapping people then torturing them in foreign countries.

Yet he had a chance to reverse this disgraceful tactic recently and did not. And to add insult to injury, those being held/tortured won't be able to have judicial help with a day in court because Obama upheld the dubious claims of "state secrets". You'll recall that Obama was very outspoken about the secrecy of the Bush administration.

I have long been a critic against Bush for these same things. I am extremely disappointed at Obama for these same things. He had a chance to right some wrongs here and did not. What makes it more perplexing to me is that as an African American, Obama's extended race was kidnapped from their homes in Africa, sent to a foreign country and there they were tortured and put into slavery with no recourse from courts or otherwise. This is a major "WTF?".

I'm no hypocrite....and I can't stand behind Obama for this. I guess this puts me officially off of the "Obama Bandwagon". I just have little tolerance for the gross violation of civil liberties....even in the case of foreigners who may or may not be guilty of crimes (we'll never know if they truly are guilty since they won't get a fair trial).

Is Obama just "Bush-lite" in these regards??

 

[fossten]

Do enemy combatant foreigners get civil liberties, considering they're not citizens?

 

[RRocket]

^^Do they deserve torture because they are suspected or accused of being a combatant? Certainly not. The do deserve basic human rights however.

The term "civil liberties" I admit may be pushing it for foreigners. But the fact remains...citizen or not, torture is uncalled for and does not yield credible intelligence. The US Military knows this.....and numerous studies say the same.

 

[Calabrio]

I thought he was off to a good start with his decision on cleaning up/closing Gitmo.

Has he actually done either of those things, or did he just say he was going to "look into it."

However, Obama has decided to stay the course on the whole "state secret" thing

Do you think that he was being dishonest before, or maybe he's learned something or been exposed to new information since winning the election that might be reshaping his position?

Is Obama just "Bush-lite" in these regards??

Hardly. But it is likely that being faced with the information and responsibilities that the American President has will ultimately lead to different people ultimately making the same decisions.

 

[fossten]

^^Do they deserve torture because they are suspected or accused of being a combatant? Certainly not. The do deserve basic human rights however.

The term "civil liberties" I admit may be pushing it for foreigners. But the fact remains...citizen or not, torture is uncalled for and does not yield credible intelligence. The US Military knows this.....and numerous studies say the same.

How do you know they're torturing the prisoners?

 

[Calabrio]

How do you know they're torturing the prisoners?

Because after they are released, they say so in the Western liberal media or directly to Al Jazzera.

 

[RRocket]

^^Several who have been released have said so. Why do you think the US has the "rendition" in the 1st place?? So that "alternate" interrogation techniques can be used in countries where it's not likely to cause a $hitstorm for the US.

Do you honestly doubt prisoners are NOT being tortured when they are sent for interrogation in countries that have little to no human rights??

 

[fossten]

^^Several who have been released have said so. Why do you think the US has the "rendition" in the 1st place?? So that "alternate" interrogation techniques can be used in countries where it's not likely to cause a $hitstorm for the US.

Do you honestly doubt prisoners are NOT being tortured when they are sent for interrogation in countries that have little to no human rights??

Yes, I honestly doubt the honesty of prisoners who are hell bent on killing us. Just like I doubt the Hamas terrorists in Gaza who deny launching missiles into Israel.

Don't you remember what the North Vietnamese said about how they would win the war? They knew they couldn't win it on the battlefield, but they had a shot through the media and crumpling the will of the American people through propaganda.

If you think the enemy doesn't use propaganda, you're grossly naive.

 

[RRocket]

^^And if you think none of these people are being tortured, you're grossly naive. Again...if no torture was happening, there would be little need for this whole "rendition" technique....

No question that some of these people are VERY bad people indeed though.

 

[MonsterMark]

I watched "Body of Lies" last night so I am all caught up on Middle East terrorist activities.

 

[Calabrio]

The imagery of the language needs to be used carefully.
Since torture can't even be defined, when ever the word is used, everyone imagines the worst possible thing possible.

And "terrorists" are trained to make that claim after being released, regardless what actually happened to them.

I will say that I don't support the concept of over seas rendition either. Nor do I oppose the use of all techniques that can be define as "torture." I think that the decision to engage in such a way can be valuable, and that American leadership should be willing to take accountability for the decision. However, the progressives and radicals have launched such an aggressive campaign to undermine our war on terror, I think both administrations will simply deem it impossible to address the issue with that kind of candor.

 

[fossten]

The Dark Knight was a good example of why 'always being the good guy' fails. If you can't fight the enemy at his own level of brutality, he will always be able to win because he knows you are squeamish. And even if you do prevail, the public will still think you are the bad guy.

 

[lincolnx2]

The Dark Knight was a good example of why 'always being the good guy' fails. If you can't fight the enemy at his own level of brutality, he will always be able to win because he knows you are squeamish. And even if you do prevail, the public will still think you are the bad guy.

I agree, in order to win the WOT, we have to adopt some of their tactics, "torture" them! My 1SG (boss) always says "If they didn't do it, they know who someone who did."