Obama's FULL REMARKS Regarding TORTURE INVESTIGATIONS

[Beetwasher]

I felt it worthy of it's own thread. My remarks inserted into the comments in BOLD. Bashers welcome to try and justify their idiocy:

Q ... I want to ask you about the interrogation memos that you released last week; two questions. You were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who carried out the instructions under this legal advice. Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then quickly on a second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether special -- a special commission or something of that nature on the Hill to go back and really look at the issue?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- look, as I said before, this has been a difficult chapter in our history, and one of the tougher decisions that I've had to make as President. On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there. And we rely on some very courageous people, not just in our military but also in the Central Intelligence Agency, to help protect the American people. And they have to make some very difficult decisions because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn't have scruples, that isn't constrained by constitutions, aren't constrained by legal niceties.

Having said that, the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That's why I've discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted.

Note: here he is NOT absolving ALL the torturers. Only those that "carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House". That means tortureres who operated OUTSIDE of this can STILL BE PROSECUTED. Also note his use of the word 'some'.

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

Note: This means Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Bybee etc. are all still very much on the hook. These are THOUGHTFUL and CAREFULLY weighed remarks here. Obama is no dummy.

As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

Note: "As a general deal..." Very important. Note comments about politicization. Note the use of "I" as in "I think we should be looking forward..." He is staying above the fray here. Very smart. This is FOR OTHERS to handle.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

Note: Independent prosecutor here we come. Again, go back to his staying above the fray.

I'm not suggesting that that should be done, but I'm saying, if you've got a choice, I think it's very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.

Note: Again, not his use of "I". This does not preclued OTHERS from making those decisions.

And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at the CIA when I visited, what makes America special in my view is not just our wealth and the dynamism of our economy and our extraordinary history and diversity. It's that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they're hard. And sometimes we make mistakes because that's the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and keep our eye on those ideals and values that have been passed on generation to generation.

And that is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And I'm confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, and live up to our values and ideals. And that's not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe. And I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.

I've got a lot of other things on my plate. I've got a big banking crisis, and I've got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we've got an auto industry that needs work. There are a whole things -- range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.

So I do not take these things lightly, and I am not in any way under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people.

So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.

All right? Thank you, everybody.

END 11:44 A.M. EDT

PROSECUTIONS ARE COMING!!!!!!!!! BANK ON IT

[UnrepentantUnitarian]

1. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Egnever]

4. Will you come back then and say you were wrong to doubt it?

Or are you just using it as an excuse to shit on good news?

[HopeOverFear]

7. Of course not. By then he would have moved onto something to shit on

[zipplewrath]

17. Make ya a deal

Let's list who and/or how many prosecutions EVER happen through the DoJ. We can settle bets in 8 years. I'll put my beer money on less than 5 and none will be previously elected officials. And Bybee will still be on the bench.

Where's your's?

[Egnever]

19. I'll take the over

[Hellataz]

2. I agree, this was his plan all along. Just another master chess move being played out

People need to remember that Obama doesn't just react and jump to action. He THINKS about his moves and words very carefully and is always working several angles behind the curtain to further the progressive and left agendas, while trying to remain a centrist to the public.

[11 Bravo]

3. We don't want no stinking FULL REMARKS!

We want cherry-picked nuggets taken out of context in order to justify yet another in an endless series of rants declaring that "OBAMA IS DEAD TO ME"!

[Realtalk]

27. LOL

Funny.

[DevonRex]

5. Thank you. Rec #4 here.

[Bobbie Jo]

6. K&R....off to the greatest with ye.

:kick:

Chess vs Checkers

[zulchzulu]

8. K&R

This is not a video game where you frag the wackjob. Precise legal proceedings take time and not giving immunity is critical as well.

Some will be upset by the fact that Obama didn't say "I'm comin' after, all ya Bush motherfuckers!" That's what they want. He is doing it from a couple different directions that are slowly surrounding them...

This is perhaps the beginning of Act Two in the four Act play.

[zipplewrath]

9. Whose back?

I'm not sure when following orders became an excuse for war crimes. I'm not sure when asking for someone to lie to you and tell you that they weren't war crimes, and having them comply, became an excuse for war crimes. I'm not sure what part of "preserve protect and defend" became something that can be translated as "someone else should do it". And I have no idea whose "back" he has.

I don't buy your translations. You imply he isn't speaking as chief executive. You imply he is abdicating his job. You imply that he condones war crimes as long as you were "just following orders". I don't believe that Obama would agree that this is what he meant.

I don't know what he means, and it is to the point where he has to repeatedly explain and clarify, including the comments of his own Chief of Staff. That means he isn't being clear. And it all comes off sounding like triangulation. I understand he does not want to politicize it. So that means he shouldn't be talking much about it at all except to make referrals to the DoJ. That he is running around telling people that he "has their back" and explaining that lawyers can lie and that makes war crimes okay, is confusing. That his Chief of Staff says that virtually no one will be prosecuted, and upon further clarification his press secretary suggests that ONLY the lawyers who wrote the opinions are at any risk is confusing. It certainly doesn't sound like anything coming from a constitutional law professor.

[Beetwasher]

10. I Implied No Such Fucking Things, Get A Grip

Read his fucking remarks and stop your whining teeth gnashing.

He IS speaking as Chief Executive and it's NOT his job to prosecute. That is DOJ's job and they will decide if and whom to prosecute. As it should be. That is HOW it will NOT be political.

Of COURSE Obama should COMMENT about it, he was asked about it for fucks sake.

[zipplewrath]

13. Less Caffeine

I read his remarks, and I read yours. I commented more on yours than his, although I mentioned some of my confusion with what he said. You can't deny that he had needed to clarify several times on these issues, including correcting his chief of staff, so some tolerance of concern on the part of others might be justified here.

You suggested that speaking in the first person singular somehow suggested that his administration could do what it wanted, but he personally wasn't going to do anything. I'm not sure he would agree with such a characterization.

The DoJ is a department of the executive branch. The AG serves at the pleasure of the POTUS. There is a tradition of allowing great independence upon the part of the DoJ from the White House (well, until the last bunch). So if he is going to speak from that tradition, he should state as such. He can either say that it is an issue for the DoJ, or he can say what his sense and point of view is. But he can't do one and presume we'll all know he means the other. If he is going to speak about "having peoples back", he is going to have to explain that, especially if he also means "unless the DoJ decides otherwise". If he wants to limit the scope of prosecutions, he can't presume that we'll all interpret that to mean "but of course I'm just president, if Eric decides otherwise, well heck, what can I do?" If he is going to come out and discuss who and who he does not want to be prosecuted, he must presume, in the absence of any other statements, that he intends upon seeing the executive branch follow that guidance, including the DoJ.

And if it is his intent to punt the whole thing over to congress, and he only plans upon cooperating if they do it the way he likes, he needs to explain that, and explain how that is "preserving, protecting and defending..."

[Beetwasher]

14. Less Bullshit

If you're still confused, that's you're problem.

There's no "punting" going on. Obama does not prosecute people or run investigations. That's not his job.

He just explained pretty fucking clearly his thinking on the matter. If you're still confused about things, that's really your problem and deficiency at this point, not his.

[zipplewrath]

15. Apparently not alone

I'm apparently not alone. And he is being so well helped by his supporters as well I see. You seem to be more interested in settling scores and getting K&R's. Odd behavior in a discussion forum, especially between apparently like minded people.

He's had to clarify several times in this matter. And I STILL don't know whose "back" he has. I still don't understand this constitutional law professors explanation of how following orders exempts someone from war crimes. I understand that he doesn't want to politicize this. And I understand why. I'm dubious he can because it was already politicized by his predecessor (well Biden's anyway). Serious crimes have been committed here and he seems to be explaining how he is going to decide who to prosecute and who to pardon. Yet you want to claim he has nothing to do with prosecutions. How can both be true?

[Beetwasher]

18. You Seem Pretty Lonely To Me

"Serious crimes have been committed here and he seems to be explaining how he is going to decide who to prosecute and who to pardon."

WTF are you talking about? Obama is not making the decisions. He has stated pretty clearly that it is up to the AG. And no one has said a single thing about PARDONS. Obama has said he does not think that those acting in "good faith" should be prosecuted. That is ALL he has said about who he thinks shouldn't be prosecuted. That's it. And frankly, if Holder decides some of the torturers SHOULD be prosecuted, Obama will almost certainly allow him to proceed. He was VERY clear the ball is in Holder's court here.

And as far as his clarifications, so what? So he's clarified. Why is that such a fucking problem for you? Clarification is good. Especially when dimwitted idiots don't understand WTF he's talking about or deliberately misconstrue what he says.

"Odd behavior in a discussion forum, especially between apparently like minded people."

Heh? Discussion in a discussion forum is odd behavior? Ok, Chester, whatever you say. :rofl:

[zipplewrath]

23. If clear, why three times

There is nothing "clear" when his press secretary has to come out the day after his Chief of Staff makes a claim and clarify what he meant. That's the point. He is confusing his supporters, much less anyone else. First he claims he only going to prosecute folks who were acting "within the parameters", now "good faith" is required, or maybe those that were operating "within four corners" of the legal opinions. As I've asked many times, how does it matter? If they tortured someone, they are guilty of war crimes. There's not alot of "wiggle room" there. I'm pretty sure he never said that the "ball was in Holder's court". But I could understand if he did. But then he shouldn't be explaining what he wants, or who he wants to prosecute. That's the confusing part, one moment he wants to talk about the parameters of who to prosecute, and another, there is the suggestion that he isn't going to have anything to do with it.

Oh, and "settling scores and getting K&R's" isn't "discussion".

[Beetwasher]

24. If You're Still Confused, I Suggest Remedial Reading Lessons

"Oh, and "settling scores and getting K&R's" isn't "discussion"."

Neither is whining and babbling.

[zipplewrath]

29. This place is so much fun

I get more substantive engagement in GOP boards.

[Beetwasher]

30. Now, What On Earth Would You Be Doing There?

:rofl:

D'oh!

[zipplewrath]

34. When they were in power

When they were the dominant party, it made more sense to discuss it with the people willing to defend it. Now that they are completely out of power, they get a tad boring.

[Beetwasher]

37. Uh Huh

Oh, yeah, I'm buying that. :rofl:

[Hissyspit]

38. He's not alone. I think these comments are actually quite muddled.

And your mocking tone is not very useful in our attempts to understand what our Democratic administration and leader are up to. But I thank you for post the full text.

[Beetwasher]

39. Not Muddled At All

Pretty clear.

[tekisui]

20. :"...politicized by his predecessor (well Biden's anyway)"?

What does that mean?

[zipplewrath]

22. Cheney

Cheney is Biden's predicessor, not Obama's. And he is really the guy that was politicizing much of this. He was the guy behind the Plame leaks.

[tekisui]

26. Gotcha.

[yodermon]

21. The OP, quoting Obama:

"that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General"

Glad to see that you're on the same page as the OP, then. :thumbsup:

[tandot]

11. Thanks, Beetwasher! K & R

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. K & R

Thanks. It's important to look at HIS words, not those of flacks and political operatives who have different agendas.

[vaberella]

16. Thanks BW. n/t

[Boomerang Diddle]

25. Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government's efforts to cope with terrorism.

Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations

[Fire1]

28. Thankyou BW, for your thoughtful analysis!

:hi:

[Spazito]

31. Well done! n/t

[Senator]

32. So, Obama Just Wants A Bipartisan Pony.

One that will magically carry away all this nasty responsibility of leadership and satisfying the treaty obligations our greater generations fought and died to forge.

His level of hope is getting more audacious by the day.

--

[Beetwasher]

33. That's The Stupidest Thing I Ever Heard

Is Obama supposed to personally prosecute people now?

What exactly is HIS responsibility in this? It's DOJ's responsibility to make decisions on prosecuting, and that's what's happening.

[Senator]

35. Not more stupid (and damaging) than Obama's years of failure...

... to even open a mouth about torturers and the need to punish them. Or to report and ACT to stop the ongoing torture and war crimes. He didn't http://talkingimpeachment.com/blog/Hall-of-Shame-Inductee----Barak-Obama.html">think it was "grave" enough to DO some damn thing.

That's not only been his responsibility, but his treaty-bound duty for literally years. His failure to act has been a war crime in itself.

And he's only making it worse by continuing to treat atrocities as "political business as usual" as President. Simply adding his "four corners" to the Nazi "just following orders" rationalization.

Driving the Torture Getaway Care is historic stupidity.

--

[Beetwasher]

36. Wow You Are Out of Your Fucking Mind

I didn't realize Obama has been Pres for years or had so much power before now.

Clown.

[Jennicut]

40. Any investigations of torture has to come from the Justice Dept. imo

I'm glad he clarified it. This is a job for Holder not Obama. He is letting Holder do his job now and not putting any stoppage or interference to Holder now. That is the way it should be. Is that now what we have a DOJ for? It became too political and was used incorrectly by Bush. Let the DOJ be independent and do their job.

[Kablooie]

41. Sounds like he's saying it's not about the foot soldiers who carry out orders.

They were given orders and told it was legal so they weren't to blame.

But the upper eschelon who devised those orders are still fair game.