What will it do? We are currently at war. Do you really believe that these memos, daily articles about the Bush admin, and threats of prosecution are not used by our enemies as further propaganda? I mean we are currently at war, and we need to throw napalm on the fire? Was it really helpful that after the abuses of Abu Grahb were exposed, that the NYT continued to trumpet about it, months after it had been exposed? I just think it's purely political, and it appears that many people see that as well. Else, Obama would not now be crawfishing. That's just one very obvious thing I can see. Not being in the military, cia, or state dept., I am sure there will be other unintended consequences. It seems the downside is pretty steep to me. The upside is partisan catharticism. He is too expedient for me. if he has changed his tune(yet again), it is because polls have shown that the majority views this with displeasure. It was a mistake to release these memos and stir it all up to begin with. He is going to take the tact that causes him the least damage and I am tired of seeing that in every politician in DC. It's just old and tired.
i think they should prosecute, but the prosecution should go all the way to the top, Cheney, Rummy, etc. Dont prosecute the people who were following orders. If at the end of obama's presidency, if he rapes and pillages the constitution and this country like the bush administration did, the right will do the same exact thing. Very hypocritical. EVERYONE should be held accountable for illegal activity, including not abiding by the geneva convention, all the way up the chain, including the president, and if obama does the same ****, then he should be held accountable too.
Going after Obama like this for purely political reasons is abusive and would be no less wrong if pursued in the future by republicans. Two wrongs don't make a right. The problem is that waterboarding and it's legality is whats up for debate. The Geneva convention outlaws landmines, but we don't respect that, so Geneva is not much of a standard. The fact that select members of congress were briefed on this method and did not object - at the time - tells me it is purely political. Pelosi is a prime example. Eventually the minutes from those briefings will be released and before that happens, Obama will declare that his admin will not go after Bush aides. Just sit back and watch.
I think what you're hoping for is to have the top Republicans humiliated and punished in hopes it helps the Democrats for years to come. I'm curiuos if you're really concerned for the welfare of those being "tortured" or hopeful it will have a negative impact on people who don't like. My advice...watch what you wish for because you might just get it. If you do, don't be surprised to learn how many Democrats were also briefed, we're well aware, and in cases even agreed to the tactics being utilized. If some go, then they all need to go. This may even lead back to top officials of the previous (Clinton) administration. Once you start leaking the unwritten rules...the floodgates will open.
they should be prosecuted also, i think nancy pelosi was one who claims she "was not" briefed, but i do not believe a word that comes out of her mouth.
The release of these pictures, and other details, do nothing but hurt our efforts overseas and will result in American deaths. The ACLU is scum. US military braces for release of detainee photos
Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com Something tells me that the Times will not print a retraction. Also, **** the Red Cross...the SOB deserves whatever is done to him.
wow! just a little bit of difference between 183 and 5, huh. definitely sloppy if not unethical reporting.
