A Bit of Change

He's closing Gitmo, but will Obama fight a Bush-like "war on terror"?

Michael C. Moynihan | February 3, 2009

Grilled by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the incoming Director of National Intelligence ducked and weaved and, much to the consternation of left-leaning bloggers, refused to say that waterboarding constituted torture. The following day, a CIA drone launched missile strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan, a nominal U.S. ally, killing 20 people. A pre-inauguration story in The Washington Times reminded readers that the new head of the CIA was involved with the "rendition" of suspected terrorists to countries with abysmal human rights records during the Clinton administration. And the president, as he had on the campaign trail, demanded a doubling of troops to Afghanistan, while his vice president warned of "an uptick" in American battlefield causalities.

One could be forgiven in thinking that the above description was written in 2004, during the darkest days of the Bush administration’s "war on terror." But it is, rather, a brief summation of President Barack Obama’s first week of adventures in the infinitely complex world of American foreign policy. It should come as little surprise that in his uncharacteristically tepid inaugural address, Obama didn’t relegate his vision of American power to vague platitudes, but rather declared that American is still "at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." Indeed, although opposed to the war in Iraq (though not a senator at the time of the vote), his appointment of the hawkish Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and his stated desire to "incapacitate" and "kill" jihadists suggests that it isn’t foreign wars that he is opposed to—it was that particular war.

This muscular approach to foreign policy will displease few Americans, as the country tends to support an aggressive stance towards terrorism. But amongst segments of the intelligentsia—those who have uncritically celebrated the prospect of “hope” and “change”—one can only expect silent disappointment.

The Obama administration wooed anti-war voters and the left flank of the Democratic Party with promises of shutting down Guantanamo Bay, CIA “black” prisons, and prohibiting “coercive interrogation” against Al Qaeda suspects—and has, within his first week in office, fulfilled these promises. But as is often the case with Obama, who disappointed supporters after flip-flopping on granting immunity to telecom companies involved in NSA wiretapping programs, things aren’t exactly how they seem.

On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times pointed out that “Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.” On black sites, echoing earlier reporting by the Washington Times, the paper further noted that an Obama executive order "appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites 'do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.'"

(Reacting to the story, blogger and Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan complained that “The LA Times got rolled by the usual suspects, who seem not to understand how the program changed under Bush-Cheney.” It is unclear just who the usual suspects are, but according to Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes, in his book Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror, the Clinton operations “were not pretty, and they were not all that different—except in frequency—from the ones the Bush administration undertook after the advent of the war on terrorism.”)

Keenly aware of the public relations problems Guantanamo created for America in Europe and America's “standing in the world,” the Obama administration is now confronting the difficult issue of just what to do with those remaining Gitmo inmates—and just what effect releasing them will have on American public opinion. For instance, just two days after Obama took office, The New York Times ran a front page story on Said Ali al-Shihri, a former prisoner at Guantanamo, that had been released into the care of the Saudi government. He later materialized, with another former inmate, as a leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen, a group that claimed credit for the November 2008 bombing of the American embassy. According to the Department of Defense, 61 detainees have returned to the battlefield after being released as no longer threats to American security. As Obama told reporters last week, preemptively responding to critics on his left, the Guantanamo situation “is more difficult than people realize.”

When I asked a reporter with contacts in the intelligence community what the planned closing of Guantanamo meant in practical terms, he was blunt: “If a group of dangerous terrorists are held without public trial in an American prison or military base, as opposed to an American military base in Cuba, have the underlying legal issues changed?" We will, he said, "have to wait and see, as many of the hardest questions on detention and interrogation have been put off for later."

So far, Obama partisans have rushed to the president’s defense, claiming that the anti-terror policies held over from the Bush years will be greatly modified, conform with existing law, and safeguard American civil liberties. It is, they are correct to argue, far too early to make such judgments. But one thing is for sure: This is not the rhetoric of the Code Pink candidate, but rather of a leader willing to sidle up to unsavory allies in a war against extremism. And it seems likely that, as journalist Eli Lake argued in The New Republic, anti-war voters might soon discover that rather than electing Jimmy Carter, they might very well have elected Ronald Reagan.

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

Comments

|2.3.09 @ 7:19AM|#

Obama Appoints Anthony to Bureau of Maternal and Child Health

February 3, 2009 Washington DC


President Barack Obama appointed Casey Anthony today to the position of Director of the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health in a well-attended ceremony in the White House.

"This is another of Obama's brilliant appointments, " commented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "Clearly Ms. Anthony knows that it takes a village to raise a child. We look forward to working with her on international programs for population control."

House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi seconded Secretary Clinton's enthusiam: "It is not only important that we have appointed the first female head of the Bureau, but we have appointed someone who understands the crucial importance of fully funding retroactive reproductive choice services. Our health care professionals face serious unemployment and fully funding these services will put Americans back to work, as well as help us with cost containment in education and other social service budgets."

In an article on "Obama's New Feminism," in this Sunday's "New York Times" magazine, long-time observor of the Washington social scene Sally Quinn praised the Casey appointment for its practicality. "For too long Republicans from Bush to McCain have pursued a wild west, laissez-faire approach to their female cabinet and other appointments, selecting women like Karen Hughs and Sarah Palin without regard to whether they had family responsibilities. President Obama returns us to the Democratic wisdom of Clinton appointees like Janet Reno and Donna Shalala who are unencumbered by family obligations, and can truly be examples for young women. From Governor Napolitano to the more maverick case of Casey Anthony, by hook or by crook, these women will do what needs to be done to make sure that they can devote their entire energies to the public weal."

Asked at the subsequent press conference whether Ms. Anthony's legal difficulties might prove an embarassment to the Obama administration, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "Republicans are, um, trying to make, um, something of Ms. Anthony's, um, innocent mistake of confusing chloroform, um, with the mosquito repellent "Off!" This is, um, a shameless, um, distraction from our, um, important stimulus bill. And it, um, won't work. We won!" Mr. Gibbs added that an Obama council of advisors including Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and Doc, Sneezy, Sleepy, Grumpy, Happy, Bashful, and Dopey disputed recent figures cited by House Republicans on infant mortality from the Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. Gibbs then ended the press conference abruptly, referring further questions to Assistant Press Secretary Moe Locke.

-- 30 --

Copyright 2009 by Bruce P.Majors

|2.3.09 @ 8:17AM|#

Bruce - short comments please. "Hit and Run" Get it?

Neoconz|2.3.09 @ 8:34AM|#

Well Obama is keeping "Extraordinary Rendition" so it looks like the outsourcing of jobs Americans won't do (like torture) will continue.

shecky|2.3.09 @ 10:33AM|#

Closing Guantanamo Bay facility within a year and has taking a stand against torture.

Aside from that, what Change?

joe|2.3.09 @ 10:46AM|#

It's like Michael Moynihan has never spoken to an actual Obama supporter, and taken the entirety of his perception of them from how the National Review describes them.

his appointment of the hawkish Hillary Clinton as secretary of state and his stated desire to "incapacitate" and "kill" jihadists suggests that it isn't foreign wars that he is opposed to-it was that particular war.

This muscular approach to foreign policy will displease few Americans, as the country tends to support an aggressive stance towards terrorism. But amongst segments of the intelligentsia-those who have uncritically celebrated the prospect of "hope" and "change"-one can only expect silent disappointment.

How, exactly, does one manage to be a political reporter, and yet be completely unaware that Barack Obama spent both the primary and general election campaigns proclaiming that he would shift resources to Afghanistan and, if given the chance, hit al Qaeda targets in Pakistan?

If you were surprised by these things, Michael, you are an idiot. Absolutely nobody writing on any of the liberal, pro-Obama blogs I've seen is the slightest bit surprised, because these issues were hashed out over a year ago.

The Code Pink candidate? You mean Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?

Notice all the quotes from those disappointed Obama supporters that Moyninhan used? No, me neither. Phony story by a phony writer about a phony controversy.

joe|2.3.09 @ 10:48AM|#

Neoconz,

Neoconz | February 3, 2009, 8:34am | #

Well Obama is keeping "Extraordinary Rendition" Actually, no. He's doing away with extraordinary renditions, and returning to the status quo pre-Bush; ie, ordinary renditions.

Ron Dandolph|2.3.09 @ 10:58AM|#

On the changes Obama's executive order makes in rendition policy:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016703.php

Short version: before Bush, it was illegal to render people to countries where they would be tortured. Bush authorized "extraordinary renditions," renditions to countries that would torture the captives. Obama's executive orders authorizes only that renditions can only be carried out when they conform to our obligation under the Treaty to Prevent Torture, which forbids sending people to countries where they will be tortured.

joe|2.3.09 @ 10:58AM|#

Whoops

|2.3.09 @ 11:01AM|#

domi: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

In general: NBC actually managed to send Dr.Bob Arnot out when Clinton blew up the children's vitamin factory in the Sudan to show us he had balls to investigate the alleged chemical weapons plant.

Will any of the Odumba felchers at MSNBC be investigating whether Odumba is just killing Pakistanis willy-nilly? I doubt it. (Maybe Rachel Maddow. The only man at the network.)

|2.3.09 @ 11:07AM|#

"domi: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....."

yeah, thats pretty much what happened while attempting to read your unsolicited and off-topic article. I'm probably the only one who tried. Spam somewhere else please.

|2.3.09 @ 11:08AM|#

Uh Joe, I can see that the non-libertarians who hang out like termites on the Reason blog are kind of slow, but you know Moynihan lives, as I do, near the Reason office in Dupont Circle. Every person we speak to when we walk down the street is a mesmerized Odumba-tard. We don't need to read "National Review" to know how stupid you mo-fos are.

joe|2.3.09 @ 11:09AM|#

The only man at the network.

Ouch.

|2.3.09 @ 11:10AM|#

Hey domotard: suck my dick

joe|2.3.09 @ 11:11AM|#

So what you're saying, Bruce, is that the complete lack of awareness of what Barack Obama, and his supporters, have been saying about security issues, Afghanistan, etc., cannot be explained by simple ignorance?

I was trying to be kind.

|2.3.09 @ 11:16AM|#

"suck my dick"

Clever. Maybe you should incorporate some of that stunning prose into your next missive. No doubt it will be penned in the feverish throes of madness from deep in your parents basement. A framed copy could occupy a spot of honor next to your last effort. You know, the one where you refer to people as ____tards (fill in the blank). Actually that's a great idea for you - I recommend you start with rebus, and when you master that - check back with us. Okay?

|2.3.09 @ 11:19AM|#

Actually I meant Madlibs - rebus might be a little advanced...

|2.3.09 @ 11:19AM|#

Rofl. Oh such silly little piss ants.

|2.3.09 @ 11:28AM|#

I have to agree with Joe on this one. I think Obama has done what he said he would do regarding terrorism so far. Also, Obama supporters will defend him for doing what he said even if they disagree with him on how to handle the issue. And Moynihan is a shitty journalist.

joe|2.3.09 @ 11:29AM|#

Step One: Spam thread about torture, rendition, war, terrorism, and detention policy with story about Casey Anthony and the Sever Dwarves.

Step Two: ???

Step Three: Call other people "silly" and "pissants."

joe|2.3.09 @ 11:32AM|#

Can a termite beat up a piss ant?

|2.3.09 @ 11:32AM|#

Some background

Recommend: DNFTT

|2.3.09 @ 11:41AM|#

Hussein is so tough on terrorists that he's going to re open the embassy in Tehran just to prove how macho he is.

I'd be as macho as Hussein is too if I married the Hulk who wears gold lame curtains. Man that's what I call courage, or desperation, or blindness.

I wonder when Hussein will issue tinfoil hats to all the troops.

joe|2.3.09 @ 12:04PM|#

Ah, yes, President Hussein.

First, we smuggle that Kenyan kid into Hawaii as a sleeper agent. Then, we get him installed as President. He's already begun the surrender to terrorists. Inshallah, we'll be living under Sharia Law by April.

Thanks for the assist, Justice Roberts. Like any good Muslim, Hussein insisted on shouting "Allah Akbar!" three times after taking an oath, so it was very helpful that you allowed for him to take the real oath behind closed doors. He can't very well do that in front of two million infidels without someone getting suspicious.

As for you, Thomas Jackson, we'll see how mouthy you are with no clitoris.

|2.3.09 @ 12:31PM|#

Closing Guantanamo Bay facility within a year and has taking a stand against torture.

Aside from that, what Change?

No change yet. Closing Gitmo does not equal releasing the prisoners from detention or giving them due process.

Taking a stand against torture does not mean that any current practices have been or will be changed.

All we've seen so far are press releases, press releases with potentially gaping loopholes in them. To be fair, he probably hasn't really had time to do anything more (although the loopholes are cause for concern).

Not saying that we won't see a real change in how we deal with these problems. Just that we haven't seen it yet.

joe|2.3.09 @ 12:44PM|#

Aside from that, what Change?

Withdrawing a from Iraq.

Ending extraordinary renditions - ie, renditions to countries that will torture the suspects.

All we've seen so far are press releases,"...and, you know, executive orders.

|2.3.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Here is a draft of the order

I have to say, it's mostly inquisitive in nature. The only positive action it takes is to halt the tribunals, and to order compliance with Geneva. This thing is being billed as an order to "shut down gitmo" but it seems more like an order to look into the possibility to me. Not that this means it won't happen - just that he seems to be covering his bases.

|2.3.09 @ 12:55PM|#

joe,

I don't believe that's an accurate statement. From what I've seen, Obama hasn't actually directly addressed extraordinary rendition. I could have missed something, and it may very well be his intent to stop the practice, but there are any number of observers (like Human Rights Watch) that are dubious about his intentions, especially since he made a point of publicly reserving the right of rendition in the first place.

One question to ask yourself--where are we going to send the Guantanamo detainees when we close the prison in Cuba? I rather suspect the answer will include some countries that allow torture.

joe|2.3.09 @ 1:06PM|#

Pro Lib,

Check out the link I provided. Some language:

"Sec. 6. Construction with Other Laws. Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including but not limited to: the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441; the Federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. 113; the Federal maiming statute, 18 U.S.C. 114; the Federal "stalking" statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A; articles 93, 124, 128, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 893, 924, 928, and 934; section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd; section 6(c) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109 366; the Geneva Conventions; and the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish any rights that any individual may have under these or other laws and treaties."

...

Part 1, Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture states:
"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

The commission is established:

"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

Barack Obama, by executive order, has forbidden federal employees from performing extraordinary renditions - that is, renditions to countries where there "are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

Remember, the Bushies' innovation, the "extraordinary" in "extraordinary rendition," was to authorize rendition to countries where the detainees would be tortured. In fact, they seem to have frequently done so for the purpose of having them tortured, to gather intelligence.

|2.3.09 @ 1:36PM|#

joe,

It sounds good, it's just a question of what will actually happen. The problem with the Bush administration on this issue is that they clothed some of their positions in terms that made it sound like they were operating within the law, then ignored the law, anyway. You have to understand, it's not so much Obama that I mistrust here--it's intelligence.

I think the Bush administration also repudiated the use of torture and rendition to countries that practice torture, just for the record. Words and actions don't agree, of course, depending on your understanding of the word "torture."

joe|2.3.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Pro Lib,

Human Rights Watch:

"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

We now have a rendition program that Human Rights Watch endorses.

joe|2.3.09 @ 1:39PM|#

Pro Lib,

The Bush administration put out press releases when backed into a corner about practices it had been carrying out for years.

The Obama administration issued a policy renouncing those methods in its second week in office.

I think that's rather a significant difference.

|2.3.09 @ 1:43PM|#

joe,

Understood. But I'm a skeptic about what's said versus what's actually done. If they end the practice, then I'll be pleased. Until then, well, status quo in the intelligence world is really hard to change.

One verbal point the administration could make is to define torture. Has it done that? If it defines torture as X then does X, it won't have the cover (flimsy though it was) that the Bush administration had.

|2.3.09 @ 2:24PM|#

Aside from that, what Change?

Withdrawing a from Iraq.

Nope, definitely not that. Our withdrawal from Iraq is provided for in the SOFA signed by Bush.

All we've seen so far are press releases,"...and, you know, executive orders.

Those executive orders are little more than statements of intent, joe, and so far have made no more practical difference in what we do than a press release.

I'm not foreclosing the possibility that Obama will make real, substantive changes. But he hasn't yet.

The Bush administration put out press releases when backed into a corner about practices it had been carrying out for years.

The Obama administration issued a policy renouncing those methods in its second week in office.

IOW, the Obama administration adopted the Bush position, yes? Regardless of whether Bush was forced into that position, the status quo on January 20 is the status quo today, isn't it?

Remember, the Bushies' innovation, the "extraordinary" in "extraordinary rendition," was to authorize rendition to countries where the detainees would be tortured.

It is not true that extraordinary rendition was a Bush innovation; it was practiced by previous administrations, and explicitly authorized by President Clinton. Bush deserves a thwacking for not ending and even expanding the program, but lets not pretend he invented it.

|2.3.09 @ 2:28PM|#

R C Dean,

The Clinton origins of rendition were referred to in the ACLU bit that I linked to, though the ACLU also criticized Bush for turning the rendition dial to '11'. Fair enough.

|2.3.09 @ 2:38PM|#

But Pro Libertate, if Odumba says he won't do things we know he won't.

It's not just campaign rhetoric.

As joe and domo can tell you, the White House is now free of scandal and lobbyists.

Dontcha read "Newsweek"?

|2.3.09 @ 2:43PM|#

Some people find my lack of faith in the government disturbing.

|2.3.09 @ 2:50PM|#

You aren't patriotic. You better get in the game.

We can't get anything done if we allow criticism.

|2.3.09 @ 2:50PM|#

Laughing at the reporter's stupidity in advocating public trials for illegal combatant terrorists. Sure, lets extend the Geneva Convention to the very people it was designed to prevent...

|2.3.09 @ 3:10PM|#

Combatants are assumed to be covered by the Geneva Convention unless they are determined not to be covered by a competant tribunal. When did that happen again?

|2.3.09 @ 3:34PM|#

According to joe Obabma is "doing away with extraordinary renditions, and returning to the status quo pre-Bush; ie, ordinary renditions."

Except, according to Richard Clark extraordianry renditions not only occurred during the Clinton adminstration; "The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"" From 1995 on it's documented fact that the US delivered terror suspects to the tender mercies of the Egyptian Mukhabarat, well known for their less than sterling human right record, and gladly collected the extracted intel. The only real difference with the Bush administration was the failure to play coy about what they were doing and a willingness to get hands on when the occasion called for it.

So if by "returning to the status quo pre-Bush" you mean "going back to playing a self delusional game of see-no-evil" then you're absolutely right.

joe|2.3.09 @ 4:18PM|#

Nope, definitely not that. Our withdrawal from Iraq is provided for in the SOFA signed by Bush.

You mean the one he signed in the middle of the campaign, after the Iraqis read the political writing on the wall and pushed for the Murtha Plan? Change We Can Believe In!

Those executive orders are little more than statements of intent, Lol, yes, executive orders directing the security agencies to change their policies are just statements of intent!

...and so far have made no more practical difference in what we do than a press release. Wow, just how high is your security clearance, that you know there haven't been any detainees whose treatment or status has changed? BTW, I guess you missed the part about the detainee tribunals being suspended.

IOW, the Obama administration adopted the Bush position, yes? No. Jesus, RC, do you ever both to click the links in the stories, or familiarize yourself with the issues in any other manner than noting the political party of the different players? This is a profoundly ignorant statement. The Bush administration never ordered the CIA to comply with torture laws; they just repeated "We don't torture," even when they tortured.

Bush deserves a thwacking for not ending and even expanding the program, but lets not pretend he invented it. OK, fair enough.

BTW, is there some reason why you are NOW writing about the Bush administration deserving "a thwacking" for its torture policies, after never having done so for the past eight years? Beyond the obvious effort to pretend that nothing has changed, I mean.

joe|2.3.09 @ 4:20PM|#

It's not just campaign rhetoric.

No, Einstein, it's a series of executive orders.

Do you know what an executive order is?

|2.3.09 @ 4:25PM|#

I'm all for thrashing all the torture proponents.

We're spinning in circles here. The issue really is how Obama's people will define torture. What I suspect is that they'll be better on that point as far as the U.S.'s use of torture and torture-lite goes, but they'll be roughly the same on rendition of people to torturing nations. It's probably inevitable if we actually start moving people out of Guantanamo. Unless we move them all to Pennsylvania, anyway.

|2.3.09 @ 4:33PM|#

"I'm all for thrashing all the torture proponents."

Unless its YOUR family, YOUR life, YOUR city at risk. Then you want an EXCEPTION, with a wink nod to someone like me that if I do waterboard the perp, you just MIGHT pardon me after.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

|2.3.09 @ 4:45PM|#

Forget about all the arguments about whether "strenuous" interrogation is right or wrong. The question is also whether it works and whether we need to use such tactics in the first place. It's rather pathetic if we stoop to the kinds of practices that we sneer at when other nations use them if we don't even have real cause.

For the record, torture the guy in the ticking atomic bomb scenario. Then turn your ass in.

joe|2.3.09 @ 4:54PM|#

Unless its YOUR family, YOUR life, YOUR city at risk.

I work in a major east coast city. You know, like the ones that got hit on 9/11?

Where are you, tough guy? Iowa? Alabama? Office park?

|2.3.09 @ 4:58PM|#

joe,

Didn't the 9/11 attackers fly out of YOUR airport?

Say, I wonder if New Yorkers add that on to their list of grievances about Boston? They should. Enablers!

I'm safely squirreled away in Tampa, pretending that CENTCOM isn't based here.

|2.3.09 @ 4:59PM|#

Fen,

"Unless its YOUR family, YOUR life, YOUR city at risk. Then you want an EXCEPTION, with a wink nod to someone like me that if I do waterboard the perp, you just MIGHT pardon me after.

What a bunch of hypocrites."

No. The second best reason to oppose torture is the fact that it doesn't work. Actionable intelligence has an extremely short half life. Most people don't crack anywhere near that fast. Whats more, even profoundly effective methods of torture (as waterboarding is reputed to be) don't guarantee you that the information you are getting is reliable. And if the only possible scenario that you can possibly justify torture on is "the ticking bomb" then you might as well throw in the towel - because it is a hypothetical argument that has no basis in reality. FYI, some of the most vocal opponents of torture that I have met are in the human intelligence community. guess why? Once you become known as "the country that tortures" sources stop being willing to work with you. Strange, that...

|2.3.09 @ 5:06PM|#

Bush took cheap shots from the media for 8 years and valid complaints from the Republicans for not being better on the bully pulpit.

Obama the brilliant orator gets a pass from the media, and valid complaints from the Democrats for an abrupt 180 on about everything.

Only 2 weeks in to an interesting 4 years...

joe|2.3.09 @ 5:12PM|#

Pro Lib,

Didn't the 9/11 attackers fly out of YOUR airport?

Say, I wonder if New Yorkers add that on to their list of grievances about Boston? They should. Enablers!

Heh. Actually, two of them were out of Logan, and two were out of an NYC airport, Kennedy I think.

I'm safely squirreled away in Tampa, pretending that CENTCOM isn't based here. I'm in my happy place. I'm in my happy place. I'm in my happy place. Ow, fire ant! Damn Florida!

joe|2.3.09 @ 5:15PM|#

....and valid complaints from the Democrats for an abrupt 180 on about everything.

Is there anything funny than these people who spent years insisting that Bush's torture, rendition, detention, and war policies were great, who now insist that Obama's repudiation of them hasn't gone far enough?

Funny you should mention "180." Rachel Maddow had an anti-torture activist on two nights ago who described Obama's position on rendition as "179 degrees from George Bush."

Three solid months of this "Obama isn't changing anything" crap, and he's still at 70% in the polls. Please, wingnuts, keep trying this tack!

|2.3.09 @ 5:21PM|#

It's almost as if Libertarians are really Republicans - only wingnuttier. Abolish the Fed!!!oneoneone!!

|2.3.09 @ 5:25PM|#

joe,

Did you hear about the alligators found in some guy's home in Massachusetts recently? I thought of you. . .and the Gatormenschen when I heard that news. And you thought you were safe. Fool!

|2.3.09 @ 5:27PM|#

Out of Kennedy! Another grievance! Why is Idlewild named after a wicked Massachusettser?

joe|2.3.09 @ 5:40PM|#

Thought experiment: Barack Obama has been President for the past eight years. George Bush was sworn in two weeks ago.

In his first two weeks, George Bush orders the opening of a lawless prison camp at Gitmo, rescinds an order for the military to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months, authorizes the military and CIA to use interrogation techniques that violate the Army Field Manual, authorizes the CIA to render detainees regardless of the strictures of torture law or treaties, and shuts down a study of how to legally try prisoners suspected of involvement with al Qaeda so they can be tried in kangaroo courts instead.

Does Pro Libertate, or anyone else, write comments about how George Bush hasn't changed anything?

joe|2.3.09 @ 5:41PM|#

Pro Lib,

AAAaaaaaaaaaghhh! Now I have to move to Rhode Island.

There's nothing that eats people in Massachusetts. It's part of our cultural heritage, and I cherish it.

|2.3.09 @ 5:47PM|#

Nothing. . .except the invading gators. Which, like African bees, are stronger, better, and more vicious than they were before.

Rhode Island and Providence Plantations should be safe. For now.

joe|2.3.09 @ 6:09PM|#

THEY DIDN'T INVADE! IT WAS AN INCURSION!

I'LL KILL YOU! I'LL KILL YOU! I'LL KILL YOU!

I'LL F*CKING KILL YOU!

;-)

|2.3.09 @ 7:53PM|#

nice reference.

|2.3.09 @ 8:59PM|#

Such amusing little sheeple.

Joe tells us that Odumba still has 70% popularity. But his porkulus bill doesn't, does it? Tick tock cocksuckers.

Domotard tells us that "inside" the Odumba campaign they have all known for months that Odumba wasn't a Code Pink pacifist. That was just "campaign rhetoric" to help him add the left wing and students to blacks to beat Hillary in the primaries. Odumba let that slip himself in his 5 wash spin cycle today dealing with his Daschle debacle, where he said he didn't want there to be "the appearance of two sets of rules, one for prominent people and one for ordinary people." Not for "everyone else." For "ordinary people"!

Rofl. Your stupid bitch president is going to be in the gutter soon enough.

|2.3.09 @ 10:15PM|#

got a lot of time on your hands now that you're not selling any houses, huh... Don't worry, I hear the boys in Dupont tip well, you can turn a hobby into an income stream.

|2.4.09 @ 11:07AM|#

Lol. If I had a penny for every time some brain dead "liberal" statist had said that to me I wouldn't have to work anymore. But actually I don't anymore anyway domotard.

DC's real estate market is the most active in the country and prices in NW DC have never fallen. Daschle's $2 million home (my tax dollars, not his, at work) at 2830 Foxhall Road is still worth what it was in 2003 if not more. Hillary Clinton's $3 million Georgian home off Massachusetts Avenue is worth more than it was when she bought it too.

One can only hope if the mobs burn them down during the Depression they are both trapped inside.

|2.4.09 @ 11:19AM|#

Joe tells us that Odumba still has 70% popularity. But his porkulus bill doesn't, does it?

It's above 50% in just about every poll taken.

Domotard tells us that "inside" the Odumba campaign they have all known for months that Odumba wasn't a Code Pink pacifist. That was just "campaign rhetoric" to help him add the left wing and students to blacks to beat Hillary in the primaries. WTF are you talking about? The months he spent saying he would send more troops to Afghanistan, the months he spent saying he would strike al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, or the months he spent saying he would expand the Army and Marines?

You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you?

Rofl. Your stupid bitch president is going to be in the gutter soon enough. TallDave, is that you? You're right, people love Sarah Palin, they'll never vote for someone with an Arab name, and the Reverend Wright episode is going to sink him!

I love the fact that I don't even have to do anything to get the dumbest, most obnoxious people in America to set themselves up for crushing defeat.

|2.4.09 @ 12:47PM|#

The funniest part is this guy assumes I must be a liberal statist because I think he's a douchebag. rolf indeed. almost as funny is the fact that he thinks he's a libertarian just because he's against the stimulus, and hates libruls. pretty typical neocon fleeing the sinking ship, probably.

|2.4.09 @ 10:13PM|#

New York Times "Good War": Afghanistan.

Is this also Obama's Good War? Gonna send more troops, and gonna catch..... .

So far he is following the dictates of Wall Street on the economy. Like, totally.

Supply-Side economics and a Good War, hell who has time for civil liberties?

|2.5.09 @ 7:18PM|#

Domotard I am afraid your every remark, and not just the one's on this article, reveal that you are the one trapped in the cave of assumptions that is your tiny mind.