After Obama Praises Torture Ruling - Civil Liberties Group Appalled - ACLU 'Hope is Flickering"

[debbierlus]

'Hope is flickering,' ACLU declares
The American Civil Liberties Union, which has generally been harshly critical of President George W. Bush and praiseworthy of President Barack Obama, has fired a torpedo across the Obama bow.

After the British High Court ruled that evidence of a British resident's rendition and harsh interrogation at the Pentagon's Guantanamo Bay prison must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama Administration offered a terse statement seemingly expressing support to the BBC.

"The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens," a spokesman said.

In response, the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, shot off a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Obama Administration to clarify their position. Romero also issued a sharply-worded three sentence statement to the press, saying Obama has now offered "more of the same."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ACLU_Hope_flickering_on_torture_after_0204.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

69. yes no shit...

:rofl:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Your post count sure is growing after all of these years!

Congrats!

[firedupdem]

4. ROFL!!

:rofl:

[countingbluecars]

5. Ridiculous. n/t

[Solomon]

49. I often wonder how much time it takes for these people to

scour the internet to come up with these things. Is there a google button for "stupid criticisms of OBama"?

[Two Americas]

96. "these people"

Who would that be? Any and all people saying anything you disagree with?

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maryf]

118. Search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man;

its publication is a duty.

~Anne Louise Germaine de Stael

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ZombieHorde]

7. Can you post the part where he praises torture? nt

[tuvor]

8. What an interesting edit of RawStory's headline.

I'll be sure never to take your posts at face value ever again.

[debbierlus]

17. Go to Raw Story's Home Page, it is THEIR headline for their link

rawstory.com

Fascinating.

I merely posted what was on rawstory. Both their headlines (please check the home page & you will see the hope flickers is THERE headline).

I didn't even comment on this - I just posted THEIR story.

Don't like it, contact the ACLU or Raw Story. I just posted the story & link.

[tuvor]

19. Oh, please. How do you think I discovered you deleted the word "ruling" in the first place?

[Occam Bandage]

22. It's sad when a liberal website's version of a liberal activist group's press release

isn't quite inflammatory enough for some people.

[countingbluecars]

20. Wrong. You left out a word.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[Two Americas]

98. it was quickly fixed

I think that it is highly unlikely that anyone, especially someone who has been under attack here for daring to post critical commentary about "our team," would have intentionally left themselves so vulnerable to these attacks.

[countingbluecars]

104. I have read many of her posts.

She appears to be a bright person, and I believe the original post was intentional.

[Two Americas]

105. speculation

That is at best unfounded speculation. Using that to attack the messenger rather than address the message is never justifiable.

If the poster is a bright person, as you say, that supports my argument. Any bright person would know what the consequences of a mistake like that would be - a pack of people going pn the attack using it to try to permanently discredit them. All of us - the majority of people here, we should not forget - who dare to criticize our team and players quickly become very aware of the risks and dangers.

A bright person knows the dynamics here. They will often be subjected to relentless attack if they do not make any mistakes, and would not intentionally throw red meat to the attackers and leave themselves vulnerable. It is a tremendous amount of work, and an unfair handicap. It is much easier to side with power, to cheer lead for the politicians, to defend and promote the status quo, and to attack critics. Those trying to elevate the discussion and expand the range of subjects cannot do that without risking attack by the loyalists and have to work much harder to be heard.

[iamthebandfanman]

107. Even 'bright' people

rush sometimes and are known to make mistakes.

having a high intelligence level doesnt mean you arent prone to the occasional typo.

[Two Americas]

108. right

An honest mistake. We all make them.

I do not know whether the OP made an honest mistake or not. There is no way for any of us to know, and there is no evidence to support the charge that it was not an honest mistake. Therefore, the charge should not be made.


.

[countingbluecars]

113. I would agree with that,

but "Obama praises torture" instead of "Obama praises torture ruling" doesn't count as a typo in my book.

[Occam Bandage]

9. I'm sorry, where in the article does he praise torture? nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[debbierlus]

23. Are you five years old?

Debbie Downer?

All I did was post the Rawstory article with the link to the story, the beginning of the article and a link to the rest of the article.

Headlines are Raws as well. Go to rawstory.com & see THEIR headline.

You think a thread about the ACLU expressing outrage at Obama is inappropriate? The ACLU has been tireless in their work to bring some sort of justice and accountability to our government. Why don't you call them?

[Occam Bandage]

24. Their headline is "praises torture ruling." Your headline is "praises torture." Not the same.

[debbierlus]

30. Oh, no. A headline mistake. Admitted, fixed. Still not one word of concern by anyone on

This board about the STORY.

From the ACLU, a group that was revered prior to Obama's election. I admitted the mistake. I apologized. However, I think the more important point here is the complete lack of concern about the story itself, no that I made a dumb mistake in posting a headline.

[snowbear]

26. You are too much lady. ... Learn to CUT and PASTE if you want accurate titles.

.
.

R-U-L-I-N-G.

---

[Marrah_G]

77. Personal attacks on other DUers is against TOS

[mucifer]

10. I was curious so I went to aclu.org. There it is! A very ugly press release.

Anyone here can read it if you chose to. Nothing is wrong with the OP. www.aclu.org

[tuvor]

12. "Nothing wrong with the OP"? Why would she deliberately edit the headline, then?

[Two Americas]

42. you must be kidding

The ACLU headline is worse -

"Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy on Torture and Rendition"

[karynnj]

52. That is a more accurate title - and it is sickening

but it is FAR less bad than saying he praises torture - which he didn't. It is a stronger headline - because it is believable, where the other isn't - and it is disappointing.

[Two Americas]

90. whatever

People are looking for any excuse to attack critics. The error was quickly corrected.

[Occam Bandage]

16. So a British court ruled that foreign intelligence-sharing is protected.

Obama says, "yes, we agree with that ruling, the United States government provides intelligence on the condition that it not be released to the public under any circumstances."

Where, in that, is Obama "praising torture?"

[karynnj]

51. Given the entire story, praising that ruling rather than

assuring the UK that we would NOT cut off foreign intelligence sharing if the torture of a British citizen was made public is COVERING UP wrongs that should instead be strongly condemned. It is wrong to say that he is "praising" torture, the problem is that he is not willing to clearly and publicly condemn BOTH the bulling of the UK with the threat not to share intelligence and to repeat his own condemnation of torture.

Obama has to decide where he really stands on this issue. There was also a disturbing report that he has not decided to eliminate rendition. Allowing these things will undercut the message that he wants to send to other countries. (Does anyone have a link to an unambiguous Obama statement against these practices - during the campaign or afterward? )

[snowbear]

18. Mucifer, you don't know the OP very well, do you?

.
.

[mucifer]

25. all I know is I went to www.aclu.org and I do not like what my president is doing.

[Two Americas]

94. that is a smear

That is character assassination by insinuation - "oh if you knew what they were like, hint hint" - and has no place in any civil discussion.

[Starry Messenger]

13. LOL, rawstory.

I haven't read them since the whole "atheists" debacle. Melinda Barton turned out to be a PUMA, oddly enough...

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_lefts_own_religious_whackjobs_0422.html

[debbierlus]

32. LOL...The ACLU - Link to their article below

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/38662prs20090204.html?s_src=RSS

Yeah. Lol. The story is a real riot.

[Starry Messenger]

34. Well, you ought to have used that for the OP.

It's a more interesting story and more credible.

[NYC_SKP]

41. Yeah, the ACLU article is overreactive bullshit. Based on this WH statement:

"The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens."

That is no big f'n deal.

[karynnj]

55. Context is everything - That statement is innocuous in a vacuum,

but it wasn't issued in a vacuum, but after the British court bowed to US pressure, initiated by Bush, but likely continued by the Obama administration to hide US torture of a British subject. (The assumption that it was continued is conjecture, based on the fact that once Bush left office, his threat was meaningless.

This is a big deal. Rather than saying he made a mistake on Daschle, he should be saying that the US was wrong to torture and you can't do that sincerely while simultaneously preventing this man's story to be known.

[catgirl]

97. He has said torture is wrong

Where have you been?

[karynnj]

106. I KNOW that he issued an order that the CIA has to follow military guidelines -

ending the torture that Bush allowed - but I think that it is also necessary not to hide the truth on misdeeds done by our country.

[Starry Messenger]

103. There seem to be two parts.

I found that confusing. There was a letter written to the state department. And then there was also a press release with some rather different language from the letter. The two got conflated in the rawstory article. Either way, the letter seemed fine...a search for clarification. I'm not sure why they also needed to release a press statement that says "Hope is flickering". I like the ACLU, but stuff like that is not necessary. My .02.

[ima_sinnic]

53. I remember that atheists thing and have really felt nothing but disdain for rawstory

since then.

it is gratifying to learn that I'm not the only one who remembers that stupid insulting bullshit crap.

[Starry Messenger]

60. Yep. I enjoyed PZ Myer's follow up, though.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/defending_melinda_barton.php

And I'm sorry if I came off sounding suppressive to some people in my post, but Barton did turn out to be a PUMA:

http://liberalsinexile.blogspot.com/2008/11/putting-country-first.html

That is from Melinda's blog. I enjoy dissent too, but I draw the line at actually voting for McCain to do it. Rawstory defended a bigot and tainted themselves for me. The ACLU I DO take seriously, of course and I will follow the story carefully under its banner. But it looks like rawstory used it in an inflammatory way and that bothers me. Sorry, my opinion.

[midnight]

14. I hope this will be clearly stated that we "The United States of

America" does not do this. "After the British High Court ruled that evidence of a British resident's rendition and harsh interrogation at the Pentagon's Guantanamo Bay prison must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama Administration offered a terse statement seemingly expressing support to the BBC."

[snowsman]

15. Change the title

The White House praised the "torture ruling", reads the Raw Story title.

The White House comments are shocking and deplorable, hiding under the excuse of National Security (where have I heard that one before?), but like I said torture was not praised.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Two Americas]

45. that is out of line

Debate with the other member if you disagree with them. Follow the proper procedure if you think there has been a rule violation.

Calling for the elimination of a member of the group - in a cowardly and malicious way - because you don't like what they have to say is so abhorrent, so clearly out of line, and it is contrary to every principle and ideal that we have been fighting for. It is extremely suppressive and destructive.

[debbierlus]

27. My apologies, I did INADVERTENTLY not include the word RULING after torture

In my original headline...

My mistake.

I do not however apologize for the post, and if people are going to dismiss the whole story about the ACLU concerns surrounding Obama due to a mistaken headline, that speaks volumes.

Again, my apologies for the accidental omission of the word ruling.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[debbierlus]

29. Fascinating that people are more upset about a rectified mistake in a headline

Then the contents of the story.

Yes, let's have an hour long discussion about a rectified mistake instead of about the article. Let's ignore the ACLU story entirely because I made a stupid mistake that was admitted and fixed as soon as it was realized.

ANYTHING to not discuss serious concerns about Obama.

Anything but that.

[snowbear]

31. Why not give Secretary Clinton a chance to respond? They asked for "clarification"..

.
.

...the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, shot off a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking the Obama Administration to clarify their position.

If you're not happy with the administration's response, I can see pounding out a thread like this.






--

[Occam Bandage]

33. First, if you were interested in honest discussion, you'd have posted an honest OP.

Secondly, I've already posted my feelings on this issue in this thread, in post #16. I'll expand a bit:

So a British court ruled that foreign intelligence-sharing is protected. Obama says, "yes, we agree with that ruling, the United States government provides the British government with intelligence on the condition that it not be released to the public under any circumstances."

I think that is a reasonable position. If you expect Obama to honor international agreements, you expect him to expect in turn that international agreements will be honored; I don't believe that intelligence-sharing agreements should be nullified because there's some information that someone wants hidden in there somewhere. That is the same position that Obama takes, that American courts have taken in the past, and that British courts have taken now.

(On the other hand, and as a brief aside, should the British courts have demanded the information be released, Obama would of course be powerless to do anything about it, and Britain and America would have to reconsider their intelligence operations in light of the fact that as soon as they cross the Atlantic, state secrets aren't either.)

I believe that Bush administration torture can be investigated without having to overhaul our intelligence network, and it seems that the British courts agree.

[karynnj]

56. You are twisting this

1) The BUSH threat to end intelligence sharing to keep what we did to a British citizen secret was wrong and bullying.
2) It looks like the British court bowed to that threat (now, not last year) because they couldn't risk losing the shared intelligence.

However, if that threat were just from Bush, its strength would have become nill when Obama took office. To me, this means that the Obama administration did not rescind the threat. If this happened in, say, 2007, would you be here defending the Bush administration in a threat that to take an action that in reality is not in the US's interest. (we need their intelligence as much as they need ours)

[Occam Bandage]

63. No, I am not. There's no "bullying" involved; that's political editorializing.

Nations expect that their agreements will be honored. It was entirely reasonable for the Bush administration to say that a British violation of their intelligence-sharing agreement would put that agreement in jeopardy.

[karynnj]

65. But, was the means we used to treat the man "intelligence"

This doesn't seem to be like the British releasing information on terrorist threats given to them by the Americans. If the issue was the reason we thought he was guilty - that could give info on our sources and what we know of a terrorist network - but this was a summary on how the man was treated. (If there were elements of the other - they could be redacted.)

[Occam Bandage]

70. The information that the British government had on the man in question

was provided through intelligence channels that are meant to remain state secrets, and as such that information could not be disclosed without American permission. The British court ruled that if the British government or prosecutors wanted to use that information in a public trial, they would have to petition the American government to release that information.

I would hope such a petition would be made, and that Obama would respond favorably. If he refuses to release any information, I would think that would indeed be cause for concern.

[karynnj]

82. I read the articles as both Bush and Obama essentially saying no

- which is why my opinion is what it is.

This should be resolved if the State Department responses to the ACLU letter. (maybe as you did) I hope your view is correct and mine wrong.

[MadBadger]

35. K&R

[xchrom]

36. recommend

[terisan]

37. Wow!! ACLU says Obama is not change.... more of the same .. complicit-They are angry.

[Political Heretic]

38. That's a pretty sleazy bullshit subject line.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[biopowertoday]

81. someone was sleeping at RAW story.

[NYC_SKP]

40. What Bullshit upon bullshit. The Rawstory and ACLU article. The only real part is this:

"The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens."

And their interpretation, then the Rawstory interpretation of THAT interpretation, and the OP interpretation of that interpretation of the interpretation of the actual statement above.

All bull shit.

:wtf:

[Two Americas]

43. the OP is accurate

I see no comments about the story, but instead a bunch of ad hominem attacks.

Here is what the ACLU said:

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:

"Hope is flickering. The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."

The letter to Secretary Clinton -


February 4, 2009

The Honorable Hillary Clinton
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520

Re: Clarification Requested on Position of the United States on Blocking Disclosure by a British Court of Its Report on Allegations of Torture

Dear Secretary Clinton:

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to clarify the position of the United States on the publication of the full judgment in a lawsuit brought by a Guantanamo detainee, Binyam Mohamed, in a British court. Earlier today, the High Court in Great Britain published a judgment denying publication of its report detailing allegations of torture. The High Court stated that the United States had threatened that full publication of the court’s judgment would jeopardize intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Remarkably, the court reported that the British government claimed the U.S. position had not changed, despite the inauguration of President Barack Obama. We urgently request that you clarify the position of the United States in this matter.

Two of the British justices severely criticized the position of the United States in working to block publication of the judgment in the torture case. Lord Justice Thomas and Justice Lloyd Jones stated today that: Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be. We had no reason ... to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence-sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports.

The court’s opinion specifically stated that attorneys for British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told the court that the United States’ threat on the effect of publication on intelligence cooperation was continued by the United States, despite the inauguration of President Obama. Specifically, the justices stated that, “it was submitted to us by Mr. David Rose that the situation had changed significantly following the election of President Obama who was avowedly determined to eschew torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and to close Guantanamo Bay. We have, however, been informed by counsel for the Foreign Secretary that the position has not changed."

The claims made by the British justices that the United States continues to oppose publication of the judgment in the Binyam Mohamed case--to the point of threatening the future of U.S.-British intelligence cooperation--seems completely at odds with both the anti-torture and transparency executive orders signed by the President. We strongly urge you to clarify the position of the United States and remove any threat related to the publication of the court’s full judgment.

Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office

[tuvor]

57. Yes, it is NOW. The OP was NOT accurate when the article was first posted.

That should be obvious after reading several of the replies from last night.

[Two Americas]

92. a small handful

A small handful of people saw the error before it was corrected, and went on a witch hunting frenzy over it. I think that they were GLAD that the OP made the error, because it gave them an excuse to go after a critic and rip them to shreds.

I believe that it was an honest error, for the simple reason that no critic here would want to give their attackers any ammunition.

Many are just salivating to be able to say - "see! Those critics are lunatics!" - and watch the critics like hawks looking for any error, any excuse to pounce and attack. And people certainly pounced quickly, and viciously, on this thread. It was also clear that the attackers have been watching the OP - the admitted as much - and that they held this up as "proof" that the OP was discredited, should never be taken seriously, and was an appropriate target for ridicule and taunts and tag team gang attacks.

I think the OP made an honest error, because there would be nothing to gain by making that mistake, because all of us who venture to post any critical analysis must always be very careful about what we say because of the hostile climate here to free speech and because there are people looking for any excuse to attack, malign and discredit us.

I think that those who attacked the OP were very happy to see the error and were quick to try to use it as an excuse to not only discredit the OP and everything they ever posted, but any and all critics and everything any of them ever posted. For them, the error was a gift, and within seconds of the error being made they were all over it.

[Occam Bandage]

74. It is now, after her edits. It was not when all those posts were made. nt

[Two Americas]

93. that is not relevant

The error does not justify the reaction.

The OP was accurate on the basic story - which is most definitely what many of the attackers were denying and try to distract people from (I understand that you attempted to discuss the content, but you were the exception) - and there was no attempt to mislead. Are we to imagine that the poster unintentionally made that mistake and thought they could get way with it? I find that highly unlikely. After all, the enemies of the OP were here within seconds, followed the link and caught the error. And they are first and foremost enemies of the OP and any critics, as they revealed with their comments. They were not fooled, because the OP linked to the source, and I can't imagine any critic here would intentionally leave themselves so vulnerable to attack, particularly a member who has repeatedly been under attack. That is why it is almost certain that the mistake was an honest one. Who would intentionally open themselves up to these attacks?

I would say that the issue of torture is the main thing we should be disturbed by, this story ranks next in importance, the suppressive mob behavior of people here next in importance, and the error by the OP would then be a distant fourth place in importance and as something we should be outraged about or even concerned with at all.

[xocet]

112. Small mistakes add up....

Here is an example of another of debbierlus' mistaken posts. It attributed the aftermath of a Hamas weapons parade accident to Israeli military action in Gaza:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/debbierlus/239

A search on DU yields this text as a description:

debbierlus's Journal - Uncensored Video of Carnage in Gaza Market ...
Uncensored Video of Carnage in Gaza Market: Warning GRAPHIC. Posted by debbierlus in Political Videos Sun Jan 04th 2009, 02:13 PM ...
journals.democraticunderground.com/debbierlus/239 - Similar pages

After spending half an hour in checking out this earlier mistaken post, I found that it was actually what is shown at the following link:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b3_1230864719

Minor mistakes color views unless checked out, and they waste the time of those who have to do the checking. Maybe this "debbierlus" posts a billion posts a day: maybe they should be reviewed a bit more carefully or maybe "debbierlus" should post less frequently, so that "reactions" are avoided.

So, basically, the message that should be taken away from this reply is that one should maintain the integrity of this website by posting CAREFULLY - DON'T WASTE OTHERS TIME WITH EASILY AVOIDED MISTAKES THAT ARE MISLEADING AND INFLAMMATORY! Thank you.

[Two Americas]

114. correct them as they come up

I don't think there is a member here that a case could not be made against if we went through all of their posts and found all of the errors.

I have responded to and corrected the same error by the same poster as many as 20 or 30 times in more than one case. It can be annoying, yes.

In any case, I have no objection to people catching and correcting the error on this thread. They should do that.

[Two Americas]

44. kicking this thread

People here have a right to read this story. Since when is the ACLU and Raw Story to be effectively censored or banned here, by turning a thread into a flamefest and getting it locked? Since when is a member to be maligned and smeared merely because we disagree with them?

People need to see the behavior of posters on this thread. It reminds me of a gang of bullies on a middle school playground, taunting and tormenting their target. That is absolutely and undeniably an assault on freedom of speech, and destructive to an atmosphere where people can consider and discuss things free from hostility and attacks. It is also contradictory to every principle and ideal we are fighting for and claim to support.

Had it been an action by a Republican - the exact same action - that Raw Story and the ACLU are talking about, not one of the people here would be dismissing it. This is the same sort of mindless partisanship and intolerance that we have watched from the Republicans all through the Bush administration, and we lose any claim to the moral high ground or support from the public when we stoop to the same thinking and tactics.

Nothing is a greater threat to the future success of the party and the new administration then this vicious and ugly pack behavior and attempts at suppression of freedom of speech, falsely called "support" of and "loyalty" to the new administration so that people can get away with it.

I don't know how valuable the story may or may not be, nor do I care who posted it or what "side" they might be on around here in this ongoing imaginary "for or against our president" battle. But people have a right to read it and to discuss it, and they have a right to be free from intimidation and personal attacks.

People also have a right to express opinions and share articles from the political Left, regardless of whether or not the content fits anyone else's ideas of what should or should nit be said.

[pecwae]

46. Same middle school tactics

that led to major culling during the primaries. "With us or against us" mentality, paranoia and purity testing that seems incongruous with liberal and progressive ideals.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

48. Kick+

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126943.800-the-obama-factor-revealed.html
WHEN it comes to Barack Obama's popularity, are some of us just sheep following the herd? Yes, he's got bucket loads of charisma, but we may be more susceptible to conformity than we imagine (see "How to control your herd of humans"-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126945.300-how-to-control-a-herd-of-humans.html). A recent study shows that we condition our opinions in reponse to those of others - when we agree with the crowd, we get a dopamine kick, and when we disagree, we feel like we've been punished. It's a basic response that's hard to resist. Once Obama's popularity reached a critical mass, his success may have been inevitable.
-----------------------------------------

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
--Don Marquis

The painfully obvious moral of the story is-
Don't piss on the icon!

[QC]

64. This needs to be an OP. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

71. The problem wasn't the sources, the problem was the dishonest way the OP presented them.

She claimed that ACLU/Raw Story said Obama "praised torture," which was not the case at all.

[Two Americas]

89. I watched the whole thing

The OP made one minor mistake. Even if it was intentional - which no one has any way to know, and the mistake was quickly corrected - that does not justify the reaction.

[EFerrari]

99. Progressive outlets are covering this story today. The story is true.

As of this morning's briefing, Robert Wood at State was still thanking the British government.

The Obama admin needs to clear this up. It will be difficult because Bush left this mess in their laps.

[woo me with science]

111. Excellent post.

I agree that it should be an OP on its own.

[JTFrog]

47. Also too, Obama is gonna torture your momma. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

50. This U.S. threat to the U.K. was bad when Bush did it. It's bad when Obama does it.

I remember when Bush did this--and found it shocking, even for Bush. It is blackmail. And that is how the British judges are taking it. They are very angry about it. It is a U.S. threat to withhold intelligence from the U.K. in retaliation for a U.K. court merely disclosing a summary of the treatment of a prisoner in a court case--a summary that the judges say presents no national security issue. The wording of the Bush and Obama statements is identical or nearly identical, as I recall. It threatens the safety of the people of the U.K.

"The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens...."

And I remember thinking it had a certain Rumsfeldian sneer to it. U.S. to U.K.: 'Rat out our torturers and you'll see some more buses blown up, for sure.'

--------------------------

We are not yet a month into the Obama administration. The exact or near exact repetition of the wording makes me think that this particular matter may not have been thoroughly reviewed yet--by Obama, Clinton or other top policy makers. It could just mean they've fallen back on an existing policy while they consider the matter. It could be this is the work of a lower level person, repeating an old policy by rote, because the uppermucks haven't reviewed it, and no decision has been made. If so, I hope the ACLU alarm brings it to Obama's attention. It is a BAD policy and needs to be changed.

I am more inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, than I would Bush--for the moment, anyway. With the Bushwhacks, I assumed the worst--reasonably so. They were heinous criminals, covering their own asses--and using the government of the United States and its policies to do so! Threatening another country! I tend to doubt that Obama would agree to that. I don't feel certain yet that he does agree to it. If it becomes clear that he does, then we have to ask why. Since the British judges reviewed the material, and found absolutely no threat to national security in it, and since they are flabbergasted by this denial, and quite angry about it (especially at the threat to British citizens), the purpose of the Obama policy (if it is his policy) would seem to be protecting the torturers and those who gave the orders.

While this wouldn't surprise me that much--I have a whole theory about "impeachment is off the table" having to do with a 'white hat' insider group stopping Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld from nuking Iran and declaring martial law here, with impeachment/prosecution for their many crimes as the bargaining chip (they backed down in exchange for being immunized)--it is still a BAD policy to deny a defendant in England his day in court and to threaten people.

I wouldn't think it would be a problem for Obama to acknowledge torture in this case--as to, say, the U.S. image abroad (or at home). Obama has already acknowledged torture and disavowed it. I suspect the problem is who this summary of the prisoner's treatment points to, or how specifically it points to them. (It could point to people who might in turn point to Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld, with the latter having been immunized for the national security reason that they were going to start WWIII--or, barring that scenario, have other dangerous capabilities that are on-going.) Yet another problem might be that the U.S. has some reason for not wanting this prisoner to be set free (the torture evidence might free him?). Maybe the Brits feel the same say, and this is all just a game. We deny the evidence. Their judges huff and puff. All a show. The prisoner is denied a torture defense. Mission accomplished.

That is another thing I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt on, for the moment (besides possibly not having had enough time to review this)--national security. I think that, for the moment, he would have to take a cautious approach to these horribly tangled and danger-fraught issues. He suspended the military tribunals, didn't just shut them down--so he and his people can review it all. God knows what they will find. The Bushwhacks fucked this all up so badly that, if there IS some national security issue, with some of the prisoners they tortured, we might not even be able to figure out what it is, or was, and what to do with the prisoner now is something not even King Solomon could find an answer to.

I don't like the situation we are in, with the president being an emperor, and with all our rights now subject to the whim of our emperor-president, not to the rule of law. I HATE it! We have even been deprived of transparent vote counting, which is now run by rightwing corporations with 'TRADE SECRET' code. We can't even prove that we elected this emperor. I think we did. But I also think that he could easily--EASILY!--have been fraudulently denied the office by the fascists who control these 'TRADE SECRET' machines. That puts him in a very compromised position. ('The TRADE SECRET code giveth; the TRADE SECRET code can taketh away.') All is in doubt. Nothing is secure. Our rights, our future, our democracy, our very viability as a country, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor--all as insecure as they could possibly be. My heart is with the ACLU. I want the bright sunlight to shine on and in our government. But my head says: Face reality; that is NOT going to happen--at least not any time soon.

I guess what I'm saying is, DO hold Obama to high standards. Demand openness. Demand accountability. Demand an end to the Forever War. But don't get upset when your brightest hopes and ideals are dashed, time and again. Restoring our democracy is going to take time. And it is going to take all of us. Obama can't do it alone, and may not be in any position to do much at all. It's up to us--to we, the people--to do the hard work of restoring our democracy, over time.

[high density]

54. ACLU needs to learn that some things stay secret no matter who is President

[snowsman]

58. The court believes the redacted paragraphs are not sensitive or a threat to nat. security

Let's not beat around the bush. UK and US don't want us to know what happened to Mohammed.

[NYC_SKP]

68. Their article was, at best, "provocative", at worst, "flamebait BS".

They should have included the full text of the white house statement and not taken one line out of context.

Whaddabunchofcrap.

[Thrill]

59. This is why these groups are whiners. Obama goes out and stops the CIA blacksites and Gitmo

And he has to take heat from the Right for it. And instead of standing behind him fighting against the criticism, they go out there and pile on him. Saying its not enough.

Some of these groups are becoming annoying pieces of shit. They aren't happy unless they have something to complain about

[snowsman]

61. Don't you want to know if Mohammed was tortured?

And doesn't the court's opinion that the undisclosed information is neither sensitive nor a national security threat?

Nobody is criticizing Obama for closing Gitmo. Closing Gitmo is independent of the issue related to the truth about Mohammed.

[Beacool]

62. Why is everybody ganging up on the OP rather than discussing the article?

The gang mentality is disturbing. This is a progressive discussion board, since when is posting articles from Rawstory and the ACLU a bad thing?

How about discussing the merits of its content? Personally, I think that there may be a bit of overreaction on both parts. I will await for Hillary's official response before being too concerned.

:-(

[NYC_SKP]

67. I discussed the articles.

Given that the ACLU article includes only a snippet of the WH statement, and then characterizes it in a flame-bating way (IMO), then the rawstory article takes it further, then the OP originally said in the subject line:

"Obama Praises Torture" (the word Ruling was left out),

The whole string, both articles and the OP, was just a calling out of Obama with scarce little original content upon which to base it.

Howya doin?

We have raining, it's raining on the river as I look out the window, pretty! :hi:

[Beacool]

73. I should have put a qualifier.

Not everyone was ganging up on the OP, but it appeared to me a case of shoot the messenger rather than discuss the validity of the article itself.

How ya' doin' Pooch? You got rain, we got extreme cold and at least once a week it snows. This morning it was 11 degrees with a wind chill factor of 2. Not toasty, to say the least. At least it'll get warmer by the weekend (40s), time to get out the bikini!!

LOL!!!

:hi:

[NYC_SKP]

78. 11 degrees! Holy Smokes, Bullwinkle!

Stay warm, we need yooooooooo! :P

[Beacool]

83. I'm trying to stay warm.

I brought out the big guns today. A coat I bought a few years ago that I only take out when it's extremely cold because it's very heavy and so warm that it feels like being inside a polar bear; I dubbed it "Toasty". Well, Toasty didn't fail me, except that I should have doubled up on the socks. My toes got a beating!!!

:7

[Occam Bandage]

72. Because the OP's original version was an entirely dishonest smear effort, claiming

that Obama "praised torture." After she changed it, I happily provided my take, which she didn't bother responding to.

[Beacool]

75. Yes, but she apologized for her error

and did so more than once. I think people were a little too harsh with her.

;)

[Occam Bandage]

76. And you'll note most every one of the posts bashing her OP happened before the apology,

back when the OP was a sleazy smear instead of an informative discussion post--and you'll note that she defended her title many times despite being specifically told what the problem was, until a critical mass of anger at her forced her to change it and apologize. I don't think it's at all "harsh" to expect that posters won't mislead other posters.

[Beacool]

84. You're right about the title, but reading the article would have clarified that point.

I just think that sometimes people get too upset if anyone dares to criticize the new administration. ALL politicians need to have their feet held to the fire and Obama is no exception. Even though in this case I think the ACLU may be jumping the gun a little too soon. I'll be interested in reading Hillary's response to them.

;)

[Two Americas]

91. you can't know that

What we do know, however, is that the response here was an entirely dishonest smear effort.

[Marrah_G]

79. Because they would rather grab their torches and pitchforks

How dare anyone speak out against some the WH says or does !

These people do not like it when their diety is questioned.

[Occam Bandage]

80. What's funny is that almost every one of those posts has the specific, concrete reason

they are complaining: that the OP posted a deliberately distorting headline claiming that Obama "praised torture."

[Two Americas]

95. that is not true

You cannot know that the OP deliberately made the mistake or intentionally distorted the headline.

It is not true that the responses were merely or even mainly about a specific, concrete complaint.

The first claim you are making is unfounded speculation, the second is a misrepresentation. And THAT is the reason for my specific, concrete complaint.

[EFerrari]

101. And anyone who has read that poster knows that is baloney. n/t

[Beacool]

85. Well, I wouldn't go that far

but there is some validity in your statement. On the other hand, the guy hasn't been in office even a month. I'll wait a while before judging him.

;)

[Marrah_G]

86. I'm criticizing a decision not the entire Presidency.

I think his administrations response to this sucked. I am totally judging him on that. But I am not judging his Presidency. I am hoping that the Administration will be adding far more successes to it's resume.

[catgirl]

66. You must have missed Obama's views & actions on torture

He's been working behind the scenes for a year to ban the Bush years practice of torture.
But you knew that already. Your pathetic attempt to smear Obama is so obvious.

[AtomicKitten]

87. The ruling referenced Junior's regime and his threats have been rendered moot as of 11/4/08.

Everything Obama has done to date regarding torture and extraordinary rendition is, in fact, hopeful. All Obama is doing is preserving cooperation with other countries, but he is in charge now and the threats made by Junior are moot.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/02/obama_endorses_bush_secrecy_on_torture_and_renditi.php

* snip *

After the British High Court ruled that evidence of British resident Binyam Mohamed's extraordinary rendition and torture at Guantánamo Bay must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama administration told the BBC today in a written statement: "The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens."

[AtomicKitten]

102. + Obama did not praise the ruling. That's inaccurate hyperbole. n/t

[HughMoran]

88. This was discussed on the BBC this morning - lets not jump the gun here

It's not as simple as the ACLU is making it out to be. Certain protocol is agreed to when the governments arrange for intelligence sharing. If the Brits were to arbitrarily set aside the rules in this instance, then they would be breaking an agreement with the United States on intelligence sharing - thus voiding the agreement and effectively stopping all cooperation between the countries immediately.

It may be possible for the two governments to come to an agreement in this one instance, but it is NOT up to the courts to make this sort of decision due to the agreement between the USA & Britain on intelligence sharing.

Also, since we will be freeing several prisoners without charging them, they will be permitted to speak freely about their encampment - including any torture that may have occurred. The truth will be out there soon enough - so this is only a temporary setback and may have been the correct thing to do given the high-level agreements previously mentioned. Also as mentioned above, they may come to a compromise in this one case and allow this information to be released. Hold on and don't prejudge - all involved are simply following international agreements and protocol.

[EFerrari]

100. The story is being covered by Washington Independent and was on Amy's show

this morning.

Binyam was tortured. They cut his penis.

And I'm sure the Brits were threatened by Bush just like all the countries in the blackmailed Coalition of the "Willing".

Obama now needs to clean it up.

This situation will come up over and over and over again in the next four years so we better figure out a way to deal with it without attacking DUers, ACLU or other human rights orgs or the progessive outlets that report the story. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

116. If you had read my post

You would have realized that the report on the BBC I was recounting made it clear that this gag order would not apply to those who were set free without conviction. Those people will be able to speak freely about their torture.

[EFerrari]

121. And if you had read mine, lol, you'd have realized that to your "don't jump the gun'

I added, "get ready for this situation to happen again, we're in clean up mode".

But, thanks anyway.

[iamthebandfanman]

109. Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy On Torture And Rendition

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/38662prs20090204.html


just thought id post a direct link to the ACLU page that talks about the OPs subject.
didnt see anybody else who had.

[Thrill]

110. I don't think they will be happy unless they have something

to bitch about

[Danger Mouse]

115. I don't see a problem with what Obama did here.

He was basically saying 'Thank you for respecting our protocols.'
The truth will out, gradually.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Danger Mouse]

120. Wow, I wonder what was said down there.