President Obama's and the Republican candidates' position on torture

[ProSense]

President Obama:

• Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
  flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
  government wide.
  
• Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
  
• Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
  
• No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
  
• Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
  alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.

Newt Gringrich:

• Supports “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding – both euphemisms for torture
  and illegal under U.S. law.

Ron Paul:

• Said that “waterboarding is torture” and “illegal” and opposes all “enhanced interrogation
  techniques.”

Mitt Romney:

• Supports the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding – both euphemisms
  for torture and illegal under U.S. law.

Rick Santorum:

• Supports “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding – both euphemisms for torture
  and illegal under U.S. law.

Source: http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[zipplewrath]

5. Really?

you're kicking your own post? narcissism?

[JackRiddler]

9. Now, now, it's a common practice on DU...

and acceptable, given that traffic can make posts disappear before they are read. Also, different crowds at different times, etc.

[zipplewrath]

10. Suppose it's slightly better than a repost

I'm old school, from the USENET days. That was a no, no around there.

[Capitalocracy]

11. No specific rule against it

but I believe the etiquette is something along the lines of "you get one".

[JackRiddler]

14. I have a different philosophy.

More like one per X time period. On a board this size a kick can mean 100 readers who would not have otherwise seen it - why not let them decide if it was worth their time?

Within reason and all that. I'm a notorious self-kicker, so don't listen to me.

[zipplewrath]

2. Obama has their backs

The flip side is none of them want to see any of the torturers, nor those who conspired to commit acts of torture, brought to justice.

[ProSense]

3. You're

"Obama has their backs"

...right. So it's no big deal if one of the Republicans who believe waterboarding is all good gets elected. They'll sanction torture and forgive Obama for not prosecuting Bush. No difference, right?

[zipplewrath]

4. Quite Honestly

Bush withdrew the torture memo's before leaving office. Obama has done little other than to say HE won't allow it. But nothing has been done to prevent it, and basically Obama can "undecide" to torture anytime he chooses. Obama tolerated the Bagram prison in Afghanistan, and none of us fully understand what was going on in there.

So at the end of the day, you're arguing a distinction that's looking for a difference.

[ProSense]

6. So

"Bush withdrew the torture memo's before leaving office. Obama has done little other than to say HE won't allow it."

...now Bush is better than or equal to Obama? Obama abolished the CIA prisons and, unlike Bush who did torture, has rejected extraordinary rendtion and torture, which is more than doing "little other than to say HE won't allow it."

[zipplewrath]

7. Not really

Tortures had stopped for years under Bush, mostly because the were really afraid that ultimately they'd get put on trial. Obama has fixed that problem. Now they know they'll never be put on trial. Obama is different than Bush on alot of things, but on this issue, he hasn't been functionally different than the final years of his predecessor. Most of what you describe in fact was being shut down by Bush. Obama finished it, much like he executed the SOFA that Bush/Gates negotiated.

Obama HAS continued the policy of indefinite detention.

[ProSense]

8. So

"Not really...Tortures had stopped for years under Bush, mostly because the were really afraid that ultimately they'd get put on trial. Obama has fixed that problem. Now they know they'll never be put on trial. Obama is different than Bush on alot of things, but on this issue, he hasn't been functionally different than the final years of his predecessor. Most of what you describe in fact was being shut down by Bush. Obama finished it, much like he executed the SOFA that Bush/Gates negotiated."

because Bush ended his torture policy before he left office, Obama who didn't sanction torture, rejects it completely, is the same as Bush?

OK.

Sheesh!

[zipplewrath]

12. Functionally the same

It is just as "legal" for a president to continue Bush's policy as the day Bush left office. Obama has done nothing to change that at all. He has continued other policies such as indefinite detention. He has advocated not closing it at all, but merely moving it to Illinois.

Obama does "sanction" torture by defending and protecting those that committed it, those that conspired to give it legal cover, and defending the methods by which they accomplished it.

If McCain were president today, in Gitmo, what would be different?

[ProSense]

13. I don't

"If McCain were president today, in Gitmo, what would be different?"

...know if this question is supposed to be a type of gotcha, but I'lls assume that it's being asked because of a true lack of knowledge of McCain's positions. Here:

McCain, Graham Lead Effort to Strip Holder of Detainee Authority

Susan Crabtree

Six senators, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), are pushing for sweeping changes to the nation’s laws governing detainees and the war on terror, including one that would strip Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department as a whole of the power to make decisions about where to try suspected terrorists.

The group of senators, which includes Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Scott Brown (R-MA), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), are working with Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee on a bill that would usher in comprehensive detainee policy changes and would, among other things, affirm the military’s right to detain, hold and interrogate detains at its discretion without the involvement of the Department of Justice or Holder.

“Detainees will be held in military custody unless the defense secretary determines the detainee is not of military intelligence value,” McCain said. “Our legislation addresses difficult detainee issues … and ensures that former detainees do not return to the battlefield — as approximately 25 percent of detainees released from Guantanamo have done.”

<...>

Unlike the House version of the bill, introduced earlier this week, the Senate version would keep Guantanamo Bay open; bar the administration from transferring detainees to foreign countries, and give the defense secretary the authority to determine where to try detainees, with military commissions being the preferred choice and civilian courts being the rare exception.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/mccain-leads-effort-to-strip-holder-of-detainee-authority.php

McCain blasts drawdown plans during visit to Afghanistan
http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/afghanistan/mccain-blasts-drawdown-plans-during-visit-to-afghanistan-1.148326

McCain Envisions ‘Scorn and Disdain’ for Obama on Iraq
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/mccain-envisions-scorn-and-disdain-for-obama-on-iraq/

[zipplewrath]

17. And if he were president?

You really think President McCain would move to restrict his options as CIC and to extend congress' control over his choices?

[joshcryer]

15. Obama still supports rendition.

[spanone]

16. k&r...