http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ma … CMP=twt_gu
From this article and others, it appears that not only the CIA, but also the U.S. military leadership was intimately involved in using torture on anyone unlucky enough to be captured, innocent or not. It's also likely Congress knew about this, and the torture hasn't stopped.
For Obama to hold Bush accountable would mean that nearly the entire Congress during Bush's presidency would be prosecuted, along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and high ranking military "leadership." The social effects of such a decision would be splintering.
Our country is corrupt.
Since the POTUS was in Congress during part of Bush's administration, wouldn't that also potentially implicate him too?
. . .and the torture hasn't stopped. Wasn't this one of President Obama's campaign promises, to stop this?
Obama along with several other democrats led calls against Water boarding and "enhanced interrogation techniques" and criticized it regularly.
The practice was banned for all US personnel by Obama in 2009.
So he did and you are wrong as ever. Satisfied?
Nobody mentioned waterboarding specifically. Torture doesn't necessarily have to be waterboarding. Yeah, he also talked about closing Guantanamo Bay.
The POTUS now outsources torture. Even the Huffington Post admits this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 … 12578.html
I guess terrorists can have rights, just not Americans. For terrorists, we have to abide by rules. For citizens, the POTUS can spy on them with drones. Satisfied, nope. In roughly four years, I hope to be satisfied.
Nope not just water boarding I also mentioned "enhanced interrogation techniques" which covers all forms of torture as define by the UN and international treaties.
Obama made it illegal for US servicemen and women to torture people there are allegations that the CIA is thus using other nations to do it for them, I think they probably are, he CIA are rather prone to acts of pure evil and I have seen it myself but it's hard to legislate against, the CIA simply claims that it is transferring a terrorist to the jurisdiction of another nation on charges pertaining to them, at that point he is no longer subject to US law but we can't pass laws saying that we don't transfer terrorists because sometimes that is necessary, it creates a quandary. Certainly however things are much better now that torture cannot be committed by Americans because it means that it is a whole lot of effort to torture people and thus it happens far less often. Perfect? No. Needs improvement? Absolutely, far superior to Bush policy? Definitely.
I am so glad you are looking forward to Hillary Clinton's presidency
Do you seriously believe that things are better now because we are outsourcing torture? That's like hiring an assassin so you can feel good about yourself. Obama is a hypocrite. Ganantanamo Bay is still open. . .
As for Hillary Clinton, I do not wish to see her as president, but at this point, I'd take just about anybody over Comrade Obama. Hillary Clinton is a conservative compared to the POTUS.
It creates international law and the conventions we are signatory to, which means people who break those laws are subject to the same laws as for example say Nazi war criminals executed after WW2
Because the current presidents has skeletons in the closet.
If the torture hasn't stopped, then Obama is just as guilty as GWB was, so, of course, he cannot hold GWB responsible for something he, himself, is doing.
That said - I think the rumors of torture are often exaggerated out of proportion. Waterboarding - if it is a torture - is a common training practice for our Special Ops teams. So...really...if those who decry using the measure on people who attack the United States, have been silent about the measure being used to train our own Special Ops - it's nothing more than a practice in hypocrisy.
GWB was wrong to institute the Patriot Act and put together the Dept of Homeland Security.
But, Obama is a much more dangerous man, as evidenced by his willingness to circumvent the War Powers Resolution and claim he has the right to execute American citizens through the use of drones.
To draw an equivalent between waterboarding a POW and training a soldier is the height of the disingenuous. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "Here is the most chilling way I can find of stating the matter. Until recently, “waterboarding” was something that Americans did to other Americans. It was inflicted, and endured, by those members of the Special Forces who underwent the advanced form of training known as sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). In these harsh exercises, brave men and women were introduced to the sorts of barbarism that they might expect to meet at the hands of a lawless foe who disregarded the Geneva Conventions. But it was something that Americans were being trained to resist, not to inflict." My emphasis
Furthermore, we also prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. "After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01170.html
Face reality. Don't pretend like it's not a big deal. If you downplay war crimes as not truly a war crime, you are doing the bidding of the powerful and perverting the conversation.
Who authorized it and who carried it out? Bush and Cheney are obvious criminals. Anyone in the CIA or military who was involved is also a criminal. These aren't real questions. But, members of Congress are guilty to the extent that they 1) did not speak up, 2) or were involved in authorizing the decision.
I believe most of them are guilty of 1), but being complacent in the face of atrocity is not the same as committing and ordering the atrocity oneself, especially if they could do nothing to actually stop it but speak out-which some did. If Obama is still authorizing torture, he is just as much of a war criminal as Bush.
The identical waterboarding procedure is employed. The only difference is that one group receiving the treatment are putting their lives on the line to protect this nation. The other group is willing to die to destroy it.
Which group do you support?
It's a war crime, what don't you understand about being party to the Geneva convention?
It's laughable to equate consenting water boarding for training to prolonged torture of non consenting suspects (not proven guilty).
It's just as bad for the POTUS to outsource torture. That's what's happening now.
No the POTUS is not the CIA is because there is no legislation against it yet (it is very hard to legislate against transferring terrorists to the custody of another country because it is often necessary).
We need legislation to make sure the POTUS doesn't have somebody tortured by another nation? Surely, this isn't what you are saying.
We need legislation to ensure that nobody is tortured by proxy or otherwise.
Okay. I don't necessarily disagree. However, isn't there something wrong when you need it? Shouldn't the POTUS, a man who adamantly opposed waterboarding, simply know that what we are doing is wrong? How can anybody truly feel that outsourcing torture is any better than what was happening under Bush?
Basically doing anything about Bush was a campaign pipe dream along with Gitmo which wasn't ever going anywhere and a host of other things the far left base was promised and betrayed.
But the next one up will tell you the same stuff and you will vote for them too. Then wonder why they didn't do it.
They weren't ever going to.
So, what you are saying is that we didn't really get the "change" we were promised? Obama=Bush=politician?
by Leta S7 years ago
C.I.A. interrogators under the Bush Admin. used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, FAR...
by rhamson7 years ago
The latest investigation into the tactics employed by the CIA in obtaining valuable information is a volatile issue. Is it one we should pursue?
by Barefootfae3 years ago
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … medium=RSSAccess is denied to the survivors.Now why can't they be interviewed?
by Holle Abee4 years ago
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 24916.htmlMan, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! What about Obama's donors and bundlers? I really thought Obama was above something like this.
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
It appears to me that the torture issue, as Frank Rich observed in today's NY Times, is "bigger" than Obama. Rich's Op-ed provides a concise summary of where the issue currently stands. In my opinion, Obama...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
(Reuters) - Former President George W. Bush has canceled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.