Obama Addesses CIA
- Thread starter Hot Mega
- Start date
I think that the President has been doing an excellent job and I hope that he continues to do well.
People that believe like we do don't hold us to a higher standard. We hold everybody to a high standard. Just because others don't doesn’t give us an excuse to do as we want. We don't control the other people, but we decide what we do. We have no excuse.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Ok D.
and everybody.
how else can we get info that may save many lives from these guys?
none of you believe in extreme methods in order to get the info, so i would like to hear just one idea that doesnt involve getting physical.
Maybe its me i'm a little fucked up but for 30 years the world said and did nothing while saddam threw people off rooves, bashed babies brains out in front of its parents, gang ***** women in front of husbands, gassed whole towns, beatand mamed people, nobody says ****.
then the us suffocates a guy for a few seconds, maybe minutes (we dont know we weren't there) who ****** thousands and cost the country a trillion dollars and the whole world now decides to get righteous.
and everybody.
how else can we get info that may save many lives from these guys?
none of you believe in extreme methods in order to get the info, so i would like to hear just one idea that doesnt involve getting physical.
Maybe its me i'm a little fucked up but for 30 years the world said and did nothing while saddam threw people off rooves, bashed babies brains out in front of its parents, gang ***** women in front of husbands, gassed whole towns, beatand mamed people, nobody says ****.
then the us suffocates a guy for a few seconds, maybe minutes (we dont know we weren't there) who ****** thousands and cost the country a trillion dollars and the whole world now decides to get righteous.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
hmm I guess nobody had any better ideas.
strange how on april 19 obama and Rahm Emanuel and their spokesperson
all said the administration has no intention of seeking prosecution of cia members.
then on april 21 he says he will seek prosecution.
Its just a smokescreen to divert attention from what he and the democrats are really doing.
Are ya gonna fall for it?
strange how on april 19 obama and Rahm Emanuel and their spokesperson
all said the administration has no intention of seeking prosecution of cia members.
then on april 21 he says he will seek prosecution.
Its just a smokescreen to divert attention from what he and the democrats are really doing.
Are ya gonna fall for it?
Sorry, you just need to listen to what's actually been said. Obama has made it clear that people who were following orders ("cia members") will not (and should not) be prosecuted, but he's leaving the door open to prosecuting those who issued the orders. He is going to leave it up to the AG to investigate it.
You're the one falling for it; with it being the smokescreen horseshit.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
i dont have time to search for video or transcripts.
he rahm and their spokesperson all said there will be no prosecutions on april 19.
2 days later he changed his tune.
if i'm wrong, then why is olbermann so pissed?
Premium Link Upgrade
And bodies, to think i just gave you rep for another post.
what am i falling for?
he rahm and their spokesperson all said there will be no prosecutions on april 19.
2 days later he changed his tune.
if i'm wrong, then why is olbermann so pissed?
Premium Link Upgrade
And bodies, to think i just gave you rep for another post.
what am i falling for?
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
yes mega that is from april 21st.
but he , rahm and gibbs said very different on the 19th.
olberman in the video i posted was pissed about the comment from the 19th.
the show was probably from the 20th.
he flip flopped, many politicians do that alot.
NO BIG DEAL!!!!
Siiiighhh.
"It is our intention...to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon their legal advice from the department of justice that they will not be subject to prosecution" - President Barack Obama
That is the relevant Obama quote from the video you posted. The statement is absolutely consistent with what he's been saying if you took the time to listen to what he was saying and not what you wanted to hear.
He's said all along that the people who were carrying out orders will not be prosecuted...there is no daylight between any statement Obama has said.
But feel free to post the quote where he contradicts himself.
i never understood why some people want to throw **** just because other people are throwing ****. the fact is you're both playing in **** 
.
.
What about ... ???
I think people forget that a major reason this "rules" (what you call "orders") came out is because there were many, alleged cases of ******* before these "rules" came out from the DoJ.
People keep trying to make this simplistic, when the times, people and realities were far, far more complex. The main reason why these "rules" came out was because the Executive Branch became aware of things going on.
That's why they sought council from the DoJ to define what would be and would not be allowed. People keep throwing this "hold ourselves to a higher standard," but I'm honestly tired of people who only want to look at what happened after the DoJ issued these "rules."
And utterly ignore before, let alone what is done by various European, Middle East and other, allied intelligence services.
What about the people doing it before the orders, or even worse!
I think people forget that a major reason this "rules" (what you call "orders") came out is because there were many, alleged cases of ******* before these "rules" came out from the DoJ.
People keep trying to make this simplistic, when the times, people and realities were far, far more complex. The main reason why these "rules" came out was because the Executive Branch became aware of things going on.
That's why they sought council from the DoJ to define what would be and would not be allowed. People keep throwing this "hold ourselves to a higher standard," but I'm honestly tired of people who only want to look at what happened after the DoJ issued these "rules."
And utterly ignore before, let alone what is done by various European, Middle East and other, allied intelligence services.
Re: What about ... ???
Hmm, before I even entertain the suggestion there were those doing it before it was authorized (in which case that's STILL breaking the law and the previous justice department should have intervened...not try and legalize it).
Do you have ANY evidence this was occurring before agents were instructed to employ it??
Honestly, this sounds like the latest strategy to spin the situation.
What you and those who are going to be trumpeting this theme in the coming days don't get is you can't make ******* acts legal by fiat. If someone waterboarded and if they were instructed to do so....those who instructed them to do so...are in legal jeopardy.
Hmm, before I even entertain the suggestion there were those doing it before it was authorized (in which case that's STILL breaking the law and the previous justice department should have intervened...not try and legalize it).
Do you have ANY evidence this was occurring before agents were instructed to employ it??
Honestly, this sounds like the latest strategy to spin the situation.
What you and those who are going to be trumpeting this theme in the coming days don't get is you can't make ******* acts legal by fiat. If someone waterboarded and if they were instructed to do so....those who instructed them to do so...are in legal jeopardy.
Re: What about ... ???
How you and others can ignore that gets very old. Especially since there are plenty of commentary on how much of the "recent CIA action" dates back not only well before these DoJ "rules," not only before the Patriot Act, but even before 9/11 and going back several administrations. Many of the current, covert and recognized action against Al Quieda goes back to 1998.
I don't know how many times people, who claim the Patriot Act was used in post-9/11 actions in 2001, was actually authorized in Executive Orders ****** in 1998+, before the Patriot Act (which merely made most of those supported by the Legislative Branch).
So the question this Libertarian (myself) has is how long has this being going on, who knew what, and what actually drove this DoJ action? While others are stopping at their political agendas, I'm asking, why did it even come to this in the first place? I could really give a fuck about people who only want W., I want to know what the fuck my government is doing, period!
Call me a right-winger, but I've had a problem with this since 1998, and it's only getting worse every year. It didn't start with W., and it's not getting better. In fact, this often gets to be a major distraction when people want to focus on only one, political aspect, and ignore the bigger picture! Yes, W. fucked up in so many ways, and that's why I never voted for him. But all that screaming about him doesn't go very far, when what he started isn't being removed.
Calling for the closure of Gitmo does not remove the legacy, let alone ignores some of the real issues that Gitmo was trying to solve, even if imperfect.
First off, there is this farce that everyone is an US citizen, a NATO citizen, or a citizen of any nation that signed the Geneva Convention. There is this farce out there that there are UN laws covering this. There are agreements between nations. They do not automatically apply to others, let alone there is no power granted to the UN over any nation, except when explicitly agreed to by member nations.
Secondly, there is this farce that the majority at Gitmo and others that have been held were in a peaceful jobs, lives, etc... before they are captured. While I don't deny a significant percentage (10% or so) that were taken into custody outside of the battlefield, the overwhelming super-majority were captured in combat action.
NOW, can be please focus on the realities that the DoJ issued these "rules" as the maximum, allowable methods for interrogation? I don't agree with them. But it's questionable if they were "*******" under various interpretations. I'm all for finding some areas that they were, but in the history of the United States, you can find far worse examples.
The question is what laws, agreements, etc... were ******** domestically and/or internationally, because there are continued arguments over what US jurisdictions could be involved, as well as what international agreements we may have ********. People keep brining up the Geneva Convention, but some people have not read it.
People like to throw around terms like "liar," "*******" and "soverign" and other things, but they don't understand the realities of what they speak of -- let alone how far they touch not just the political entities they dislike, but even some of the ones they do. If there is a major reason why I do not find Obama's recent actions as a surprise, it's because they don't stop at one administration or one agency or one person.
You can't start dragging down one aspect without bringing down everything else that goes with it.
It's the same reason they won't try W. for allegedly "fabricating" the evidence on Iraq, because it would easily extend into the previous administration as well, along with UK intelligence services, etc... -- let alone the UN conceded Iraq never disclosed a damn thing, which made verification of anything impossible. That's an absolute repeat theme with Iraq for over 12 years -- especially after the '91 "epiphanies" of just how much we didn't know they already had.
Obama wants to move forward, just like Ford did. He's a leader. He's a healer. He's trying not to be a politician. I respect that.
A lot of people were calling for Nixon's head-on-a-platter for many things, blaming many aspects of Vietnam on him not realizing that you could go back beyond LBJ. And to JFK who ordered the execution of the elected leader of South Vietnam. I honestly wish Americans knew their history. After all, Ford who was the first President who finally made it an Executive Order that the US could not assassinate the leader of another government, regardless.
If Obama is a leader like Ford, which I believe he is, he will finally put down an Executive Order that outlaws all actions that could be considered ******* once and for all, including forbidding any Americans who are remotely a party to it.
Doesn't mean ******* will be ended any more than American allies take various moves that would be against US law. But it does mean Americans will take care to both avoid situations and council allies to not use methods and not execution actions that are in ********* of US Executive Orders. May Obama's legacy be that of Ford's.
Those aren't just "rumors." They are the repeatedly quoted reason why the DoJ was consulted in the first place, because the DoJ was told to come up with such "rules" after the Executive Branch became aware of various methods of alleged ******* actually going on. That's not spin, and it's even in some of the released documentation.
How you and others can ignore that gets very old. Especially since there are plenty of commentary on how much of the "recent CIA action" dates back not only well before these DoJ "rules," not only before the Patriot Act, but even before 9/11 and going back several administrations. Many of the current, covert and recognized action against Al Quieda goes back to 1998.
I don't know how many times people, who claim the Patriot Act was used in post-9/11 actions in 2001, was actually authorized in Executive Orders ****** in 1998+, before the Patriot Act (which merely made most of those supported by the Legislative Branch).
So the question this Libertarian (myself) has is how long has this being going on, who knew what, and what actually drove this DoJ action? While others are stopping at their political agendas, I'm asking, why did it even come to this in the first place? I could really give a fuck about people who only want W., I want to know what the fuck my government is doing, period!
Call me a right-winger, but I've had a problem with this since 1998, and it's only getting worse every year. It didn't start with W., and it's not getting better. In fact, this often gets to be a major distraction when people want to focus on only one, political aspect, and ignore the bigger picture! Yes, W. fucked up in so many ways, and that's why I never voted for him. But all that screaming about him doesn't go very far, when what he started isn't being removed.
Calling for the closure of Gitmo does not remove the legacy, let alone ignores some of the real issues that Gitmo was trying to solve, even if imperfect.
The question has always been, "Who's law?" and "Under what jurisdictions and/or agreements?"
First off, there is this farce that everyone is an US citizen, a NATO citizen, or a citizen of any nation that signed the Geneva Convention. There is this farce out there that there are UN laws covering this. There are agreements between nations. They do not automatically apply to others, let alone there is no power granted to the UN over any nation, except when explicitly agreed to by member nations.
Secondly, there is this farce that the majority at Gitmo and others that have been held were in a peaceful jobs, lives, etc... before they are captured. While I don't deny a significant percentage (10% or so) that were taken into custody outside of the battlefield, the overwhelming super-majority were captured in combat action.
NOW, can be please focus on the realities that the DoJ issued these "rules" as the maximum, allowable methods for interrogation? I don't agree with them. But it's questionable if they were "*******" under various interpretations. I'm all for finding some areas that they were, but in the history of the United States, you can find far worse examples.
The question is what laws, agreements, etc... were ******** domestically and/or internationally, because there are continued arguments over what US jurisdictions could be involved, as well as what international agreements we may have ********. People keep brining up the Geneva Convention, but some people have not read it.
When are you going to realize that the DoJ "rules" were not "instructions" but "limitations" on what was allowed? Geez, are people really that thick? So politically aligned?
You're kidding me, right?
I never said they weren't. But you keep missing the greater realities of this. Everyone does.
People like to throw around terms like "liar," "*******" and "soverign" and other things, but they don't understand the realities of what they speak of -- let alone how far they touch not just the political entities they dislike, but even some of the ones they do. If there is a major reason why I do not find Obama's recent actions as a surprise, it's because they don't stop at one administration or one agency or one person.
You can't start dragging down one aspect without bringing down everything else that goes with it.
It's the same reason they won't try W. for allegedly "fabricating" the evidence on Iraq, because it would easily extend into the previous administration as well, along with UK intelligence services, etc... -- let alone the UN conceded Iraq never disclosed a damn thing, which made verification of anything impossible. That's an absolute repeat theme with Iraq for over 12 years -- especially after the '91 "epiphanies" of just how much we didn't know they already had.
Obama wants to move forward, just like Ford did. He's a leader. He's a healer. He's trying not to be a politician. I respect that.
A lot of people were calling for Nixon's head-on-a-platter for many things, blaming many aspects of Vietnam on him not realizing that you could go back beyond LBJ. And to JFK who ordered the execution of the elected leader of South Vietnam. I honestly wish Americans knew their history. After all, Ford who was the first President who finally made it an Executive Order that the US could not assassinate the leader of another government, regardless.
If Obama is a leader like Ford, which I believe he is, he will finally put down an Executive Order that outlaws all actions that could be considered ******* once and for all, including forbidding any Americans who are remotely a party to it.
Doesn't mean ******* will be ended any more than American allies take various moves that would be against US law. But it does mean Americans will take care to both avoid situations and council allies to not use methods and not execution actions that are in ********* of US Executive Orders. May Obama's legacy be that of Ford's.
Re: What about ... ???
"became aware"?? Okay, we'll play along with that.
Beyond everything you've said it's as simple as this, when has the US EVER sanctioned the actions that constituted water boarding when it was discovered?
We know it's ******* and it's only debatable in the minds of the intellectually dishonest IMO. But cite a case in which the US government discovered it being administered by agents of our government and it wasn't punished prior to Bush.
"became aware"?? Okay, we'll play along with that.
Beyond everything you've said it's as simple as this, when has the US EVER sanctioned the actions that constituted water boarding when it was discovered?
We know it's ******* and it's only debatable in the minds of the intellectually dishonest IMO. But cite a case in which the US government discovered it being administered by agents of our government and it wasn't punished prior to Bush.
Re: What about ... ???
The US has been a party -- directly and indirectly -- to many other, foreign interrogations, over the years. This includes leading up to, and after, 9/11 -- before these DoJ "rules."
And yes, many administrations have decided to ignore reports, leave them "unconfirmed," etc... In this case, an actual, terrorist ****** had been committed against the United States. It's kinda hard to ignore such reports when you have a known war going on -- when countless "allies" are rounding up combatants en masse.
At least post-Ford administration, after the alleged "bad days" of the CIA were over.
If you think this all hasn't happened before, then really read up on American history. Every few administrations a new US Legislative and/or Executive has to come in and "lay down the law, orders, etc..." on what the US not allow, directly or indirectly, because the legal rules are not clear.
It wasn't until the Ford administration that the US made it formal policy that no extension of the US government would be involved in the execution of a foreign leader, elected or not. I could easily make the administrations of Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ look as dirty as W. any day, or Clinton for people who want to focus on his issues that you don't see in the media much.**
**E.g., people complain about wire tapping of a Congressmen during W. "conveniently forget" that the Clinton administration pulled FBI files on Republican Congressmen for what were clearly political reasons. And there are other tit-for-tat examples as well.
And even post-Ford, it's still hairy on what the US can and cannot do when it comes to subverting the elected governments of nations. The Reagan administration tried to put down Executive Orders controlling that as well, even having its own DoJ charge certain members of its own administration and Congress who were involved with various actions. It also set the groundwork during the first Bush administration to even hold American advisers accountable for providing US intelligence that resulted in actions that were in ********* of US law.
E.g., during US advisement during Columbian **** interdiction, it was discovered that US intelligence -- such as communication eavesdropping -- was resulting in executions, instead of prosecutions. That was in ********* of US laws and executive orders, as it was subverting "due process," even though US individuals were neither responsible nor even indirectly involved themselves as such (let alone did not desire).
Do some of you just want to argue rhetoric? Or do you want to argue actual laws and international agreements, and where they apply?
Ford put down the Executive Order forbidding any US involvement, including indirect knowledge, of assassination. The question before that was how people danced around it. Even beloved JFK did.
Obama is putting down the Executive Order forbidding US involvement, including indirect knowledge, of *******. Before now, it's always been a question of how much US officials, let alone contractors and American allies -- and their off-shore installations -- were involved.
E.g., the CIA admits to only three (3) uses of water-boarding, all before the issued DoJ "rules." The question is, how many Americans in the CIA, defense, contractors, etc... were a party to any type of this ******* at any time? What about before 9/11?
Just like W. is the first President to suspend Habeas Corpus (let alone we're talking about nearlly all found on a field of battle, and not civilian criminals, and not Americans let alone "stateless citizens"). So many people talk about "firsts" with W., and I've made the mistake of even bothering trying to correct them, like yourself. You want "political capital" on W., and if it touches anyone else -- let alone Democrats -- you'll ignore it.
That's why Libertarians like myself just shake my head. I just hope Obama does what Ford did, leaving no doubt on what is not allowed from now on. That's all I can hope for from real leaders, not those who follow the political rhetoric and bullshit.
Give me a break. You do understand that the DoJ "rules" came out well after 9/11, correct?
When it wasn't disclosed? The question is, where did the "disclosure" stop? You do understand that this isn't clear, cut'n dry, correct? That's the question we'll never get an answer to.
The US has been a party -- directly and indirectly -- to many other, foreign interrogations, over the years. This includes leading up to, and after, 9/11 -- before these DoJ "rules."
And yes, many administrations have decided to ignore reports, leave them "unconfirmed," etc... In this case, an actual, terrorist ****** had been committed against the United States. It's kinda hard to ignore such reports when you have a known war going on -- when countless "allies" are rounding up combatants en masse.
At least post-Ford administration, after the alleged "bad days" of the CIA were over.
If you think this all hasn't happened before, then really read up on American history. Every few administrations a new US Legislative and/or Executive has to come in and "lay down the law, orders, etc..." on what the US not allow, directly or indirectly, because the legal rules are not clear.
It wasn't until the Ford administration that the US made it formal policy that no extension of the US government would be involved in the execution of a foreign leader, elected or not. I could easily make the administrations of Eisenhower, JFK and LBJ look as dirty as W. any day, or Clinton for people who want to focus on his issues that you don't see in the media much.**
**E.g., people complain about wire tapping of a Congressmen during W. "conveniently forget" that the Clinton administration pulled FBI files on Republican Congressmen for what were clearly political reasons. And there are other tit-for-tat examples as well.
And even post-Ford, it's still hairy on what the US can and cannot do when it comes to subverting the elected governments of nations. The Reagan administration tried to put down Executive Orders controlling that as well, even having its own DoJ charge certain members of its own administration and Congress who were involved with various actions. It also set the groundwork during the first Bush administration to even hold American advisers accountable for providing US intelligence that resulted in actions that were in ********* of US law.
E.g., during US advisement during Columbian **** interdiction, it was discovered that US intelligence -- such as communication eavesdropping -- was resulting in executions, instead of prosecutions. That was in ********* of US laws and executive orders, as it was subverting "due process," even though US individuals were neither responsible nor even indirectly involved themselves as such (let alone did not desire).
Just a few months ago, a lot of people on this board were saying, "oh, it's X and Y" and going off on all sorts of things, claim it was worse than ***** deprivation and other things like water boarding. But in the end, this is all they could find the last administration knew of, as outlined in this DoJ "rules." That's sad, backtracking and not atypical.
Do some of you just want to argue rhetoric? Or do you want to argue actual laws and international agreements, and where they apply?
Ford put down the Executive Order forbidding any US involvement, including indirect knowledge, of assassination. The question before that was how people danced around it. Even beloved JFK did.
Obama is putting down the Executive Order forbidding US involvement, including indirect knowledge, of *******. Before now, it's always been a question of how much US officials, let alone contractors and American allies -- and their off-shore installations -- were involved.
E.g., the CIA admits to only three (3) uses of water-boarding, all before the issued DoJ "rules." The question is, how many Americans in the CIA, defense, contractors, etc... were a party to any type of this ******* at any time? What about before 9/11?
Assume there are none. That seems to work best with yourself.
Just like W. is the first President to suspend Habeas Corpus (let alone we're talking about nearlly all found on a field of battle, and not civilian criminals, and not Americans let alone "stateless citizens"). So many people talk about "firsts" with W., and I've made the mistake of even bothering trying to correct them, like yourself. You want "political capital" on W., and if it touches anyone else -- let alone Democrats -- you'll ignore it.
That's why Libertarians like myself just shake my head. I just hope Obama does what Ford did, leaving no doubt on what is not allowed from now on. That's all I can hope for from real leaders, not those who follow the political rhetoric and bullshit.
Re: What about ... ???
In everything you cite...you seem to forget one simple problem call "precedence".
There was no precedence established for what is to happen in cases of civil war and the potential suspension of habeas corpus.
Precedence has already been established in the case of actions that constitute water boarding.
Our whole system of jurisprudence would not function if we couldn't establish some consistency with respect to what actions constituted breaches of law.
In everything you cite...you seem to forget one simple problem call "precedence".
There was no precedence established for what is to happen in cases of civil war and the potential suspension of habeas corpus.
Precedence has already been established in the case of actions that constitute water boarding.
Our whole system of jurisprudence would not function if we couldn't establish some consistency with respect to what actions constituted breaches of law.
Re: What about ... ???
Let alone that was regarding American citizens.
This is what I'm talking about.
I'm not just talking the civil war, let alone the US Constitution addressed such back then just as much as today. Just because the Supreme Court re-affirmed that reality doesn't mean there was not precedence.
Let alone that was regarding American citizens.
So tell me how could JFK legally execute another, foreign leader?
This is what I'm talking about.
Re: What about ... ???
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm simply asking where has the US ever sanctioned actions that constitute water boarding instead of punishing it? And where has the law been legally changed to make actions recognized as water boarding legal? Those are two, simple questions.
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm simply asking where has the US ever sanctioned actions that constitute water boarding instead of punishing it? And where has the law been legally changed to make actions recognized as water boarding legal? Those are two, simple questions.
