Will the steps taken so far by Obama "ensure" the tortures will "never take place again?"

[bigtree]

Or, has he merely positioned his own administration against using the tortures revealed in the memos?

It's not clear what steps Pres. Obama has taken to prevent future administrations from resorting to torture, merely claiming as Bush did - and, as the president declared in his statement announcing the release of the memos - that they're doing "whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States."

So far, the president has been careful to just refer to his own administration when making his declarations against "the interrogation techniques described in these memos," and "the actions described within them." (*no mention of the word -torture- in the president's official statement yesterday)


here's a few past statements . . .

"It was clear throughout this campaign and this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture," Obama said. "We will abide by the Geneva Conventions; we will uphold our highest ideals."
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003006250


"What I have said is that my administration is going to operate in a way that leaves no doubt that we do not torture that we abide by the Geneva Conventions and that we observe our traditions of rule of law and due process.
http://www.pubrecord.org/torture/797-senate-report-to-reveal-new-details-of-bush-officials-role-in-torture-.html


. . . under my administration the United States does not torture
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12iran.html


What about future administrations? :shrug:



Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2009/04/wh041609.html

[AndyTiedye]

1. Anything Obama Could Do, A Future Administration Could Undo

Obama can only be held answerable for his own administration.

Anything he could do, another administration could undo.
Congress could pass more laws, in theory, but in practice the unbreakable Repig filibuster would doom any such effort.
Even if we could pass more laws, a future pResident could ignore them, as Bush** did.

The Supreme Court is still packed with Repiglickins, and will be for decades to come, so there will be no help from there.

[bigtree]

2. prosecutions

. . . would provide some deterrent effect.

[Occam Bandage]

3. The only thing prosecutions would deter

is employment at the CIA.

[bigtree]

4. that's the line

I haven't seen anyone claim they need to have immunity from the law in order to work at the CIA. Is that a prerequisite now?

[Occam Bandage]

6. Nope.

However, good-faith reliance on the legal analyses provided by the Department of Justice does tend to immunize one from prosecution for violations of revisions made to those same legal analyses after the acts in question were performed. The CIA agents were, according to the Justice Department, following the law at all times. The DOJ can't change its interpretation of the law and then prosecute successfully for acts occurring before the change in interpretation.

Doing that wouldn't result in convictions. It would only result in the CIA believing (correctly) that it was being scapegoated.

[EFerrari]

10. Except that's backward. First CIA tortured, then months later

these justifying memos were produced. So, they were not "relying" on them at the time, they were relying on directives from the White House as Scott Horton pointed out today on Democracy Now!

He also said that there is a report in the works about how these memos were produced that may tank the whole argument the present DoJ is using with respect to CIA employees. I don't know what he meant by that.

[Occam Bandage]

12. So the argument is invalid because there's a report supposedly coming out that says it is.

Argument by Appeal to Forthcoming Authority? That's a new one.

[EFerrari]

15. No. I"m sorry you have so much trouble reading English.

I'll let someone else translate for you.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. But Obama did not say he wasn't going to prosecute THOSE people. He said he wouldn't prosecute

those who worked UNDER the justice department memos. Those who worked outside of them were not mentioned.

[EFerrari]

20. He effectively disappeared the fact of the timing of the memos

to the degree that most people believe the memos were in place first when they were not.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

21. He didn't disappear anything though. Anyone can look at the memos and look at the dates

and figure that out.

[EFerrari]

22. Any DUer might. But look at all those who haven't.

That's all right. It's still early days, SCQ.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. My hope is that any ACLU-er might.

We'll have to wait and see, I guess.

I hate that.

[EFerrari]

24. It's hard to keep bringing up the problems of this situation

when some folks take them as some kind of attack on Obama.

Obama didn't create this mess. He just has to deal with it -- and in the absence of our dysfunctional congress who I've been calling the Torture Congress for years now.

At least today we have a chance in hell of getting the right thing done. It won't be immediate and we may have to make some noise. But, we have the chance. :hug:

[bigtree]

11. all subject to this Justice Dept.'s interpretation of the law

. . . not infallible, or even close to correct in all of that, in my view.

The agents may or may not have followed the directives. I'd like to see an independent investigation to determine that. I object to this blanket immunity, if only for the reason that the past administration was obstructive and less than forthcoming with the details of their actions. Plenty of independent looks at this concluding that the interpretations given of what wasn't considered torture are strained at best.

[Occam Bandage]

14. "Blanket immunity" has not been offered.

Rather, the Obama administration has stated it will not launch prosecutions. There's a difference. As for an investigation? These documents didn't simply pop out of a vacuum.

[bigtree]

17. immunity in his term

. . . effectively. All of the parsing won't change the fact that his Justice Dept. is poised to put the lid on it all.

As for being satisfied with the Executive branch investigating itself? :rofl:

[EOTE]

9. Exactly.

Until at least SOMEONE is held accountable, there will be no deterrent effect. It doesn't matter what new rules are put in place, if future administrations know that they can break those rules with impunity, what reason will they have not to?

[cali]

5. nothing but nothing will stop torture from taking place in the future

don't mean to be cynical but it's not like Nuremberg didn't stop genocide or torture. Just like the death penalty doesn't stop murder. Not that I don't believe we should prosecute, but let's face it, human nature will out. And it ain't pretty.

[bigtree]

7. These abuses and crimes were apparently directed and approved

. . . by folks who should have been subject to a great deal more accountability. I see what the president is getting at, I just don't see where he's outlined a means to that (imperfect) end beyond his own term in office.

[WeDidIt]

8. The only way to ensure they don't happen again is to prosecute the perps. n/t

[EFerrari]

13. It strikes me that there is a vacuum where Congress should be.

Why is this all on Obama's plate? He's taking good steps but his admin necessarily has to protect the office. WTF is Congress?

:shrug:

[bigtree]

16. that's where all of Bush's assumed authority came from

. . . Congress's refusal to act and hold the administration accountable. I agree that's where the bulk of the pressure should be exerted to influence this Justice Dept. to go further in investigating what actually occurred and acting on it..

[EFerrari]

18. You'd think Pelosi would think in the privacy of her mind,

"we have a hugely popular new president that we can keep there for two terms. We need to take on the bigger piece of this issue because it's not going away."

Just on the most cynical political level, that would seem to be common sense. :shrug:

[JTFrog]

25. The ihateobama people have lost their fuckin minds.

So not only has Obama not fixed everything in three months, he still hasn't fixed everything that will happen in the future!!

I don't even recognize this place anymore.

[bigtree]

26. funny

. . . how your complaint sounds just like the deflection Bush folks used to use when anyone criticized him. "They just hate' the president."

If Obama can declare torture by the U.S. over and done with, he can be questioned on that prospect. I don't know why you loyalists can't understand that we also get to project what we believe will happen with the future of his plans and actions; just like he and his automatic supporters do whenever they're bragging on what he's accomplished so far.


April 16, 2009
Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2009/04/wh041609.html

" . . . these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past."

"I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future."

"I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order."

"I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States."

"That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again."

[JTFrog]

28. Funny

how your complaint sounds just like the PUMAs and dittoheads. They just hate to hear about any of Obama's accomplishments so far. So much so that it seems even condemning him for not guaranteeing the actions of all future administrations has now actually made it to this board.

The stupid. It burns.

[bigtree]

29. That's the DU I know

Go for the personal insults rather than actually debate the issue at hand.

It's Obama himself who has implied that he's ended the practice for good:

"That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again."

What 'steps' did he take to 'ensure' that "the actions described within them never take place again?"

Only Obama can predict the future of U.S. initiated torture and the effect of his actions on that future? How absurd.

Stupid is as stupid does, I suppose.

[JTFrog]

30. Personal insult?

Such as comparing me to a fucking bush supporter.

You actually expect real debate as to whether or not Obama can guarantee the actions of future administrations?

Good luck with that.

[KG]

27. US intellegence agencies aren't going to let a pres. decree stop them from torturing

someone they really wanna torture, or from turning them over to a gov't that tortures.

the law has never stopped the CIA, et al, from doing what it will - torture, overthrowing govt's, assasinations, etc.