*discuss
This whole strategy from the Obama administration has perplexed me ever since he announced that the actual torturers should not be prosecuted.

The only sense I can make of it is that perhaps he could come under criticism from the republicans for NOT prosecuting these people so he could in turn prosecute with both democratic and republican support. Thoughts?

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by JiggaJonson.

Ummm... yeah, the * discuss command is only for if a video is possibly a dupe, or is against the terms of use, or broken or something like that. It's not to actually have a discussion about a video.

*return

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by Sarzy.

Obama has to run a fine line between prosecution of those who carried out the orders, the ones who implemented said orders into legal documentation and those who are actually responsible for kicking off the whole thing.

Who is most guilty of 3?

It's good that there's a president who is able to formulate a coherent idea about where he wants to go, and then articulately explain it.

heheheh srry getting gold star crazy and i thought "hey we should discuss this"
discuss invoke description noted

I have a hard time listening to him because of all the damn cameras clicking away in the background. For fucks sake, he's giving a speech, not modeling his suit, why the fuck do they have to keep snapping off bursts of pictures during his speech?

For the most part, I follow and agree with what Obama is saying, in that this has to be dealt with carefully and especially in a bipartisan fashion. However, I am not as sure I agree regarding where the guilt fully lies.

Guilt at the top of the chain of command, those giving the orders, is of no debate to me. Those people need to be punished (according to Rule of Law) as they gave criminal orders to those that performed the torture. On a side note, I hate the use of the words "enhanced interrogation"... fucking call it what it is.

At the same time, "I just following orders", the Nuremberg Defense, has been used many times in modern history as an excuse for doing the inexcusable. There is a reason why international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, exist. This is specifially why the Nuremberg Principle IV was written.

There are rules, even in war. This is a moral issue that deserves greater international public debate, and I think Obama may have spoken too early, essentially giving pardons to those on the frontlines, those that performed the actual torture.

The sad thing, is that if it was a weaker country (in other words, one that could not defend it's sovereignty, not a superpower) that performed these acts the debate would be alot shorter, and those involved could expect to be punished for their actions. This will not be the first time the US government says "screw you" to international law and decide to prosecute/pardon these people under their own system, which will be much more gentle.

That is a perpetual problem with international law and world courts... ultimately a country that exercises it's sovereignty to the degree of the US (China and Russia are included in this) can do whatever they want with little consequences in the short term, if ever. They have no obligation to international law or the world courts because they can do whatever they want. The illegal war in Iraq is a perfect example of this sort of violation. A justice system with no real accountability or support is in the end a failure.

In the end, I will be happy enough if the big players, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield answered for their crimes (not just related to torture, but going into Iraq, illegal wire tapping... the works). I just think it is too early to be dishing out pardons to anyone.

I'm still trying to decide how thought out this position of Obama's is.

Politically, I think it makes absolute sense for him to set this up so that if an investigation happens, it'll have been done against his own objections. That isolates him from any blowback when Republicans inevitably rally around the guilty and accuse Democrats of engaging in a partisan witch hunt.

However, as the single most powerful politician in the US Gov't, I want to hear a lot more "No one is above the law" than "I prefer to look forward".

It's important for the function of our government that the law reigns supreme, especially when we're talking about a particularly heinous crime -- war crimes in this case.

We can have a debate in this country about how much equality people are supposed to have, but it should be absolutely crystal clear to everyone that we're all equals in the eyes of the law.

Pardon them after the fact if you feel the guilty deserve clemency, but don't prevent the criminal investigations from taking place. Get out of the way, and let the wheels of justice work.

I'm not ready to sharpen my pitchfork yet about this because it seems that other than making mildly dissenting public statements, Obama is doing nothing to stand in the way of the process working itself out.

It better damn well stay that way.

I very much doubt that this will ever happen in a bipartisan way. I just don't see the Republicans owning up to something that would harm their party.