Obama To U.N.: I Prohibit 'Torture' By U.S. Without Exception

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Obama Says 'Torture' Before UN General Assembly
Rachel Slajda | September 23, 2009, 10:19AM
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/obama-says-torture-before-un-general-assembly.php?ref=fpa

Speaking today to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama used the word "torture" for the first time when addressing an international body.

"On my first day in office, I prohibited - without exception or equivocation - the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. Every nation must know: America will live its values, and we will lead by example."


Read more: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/obama-says-torture-before-un-general-assembly.php?ref=fpa

[2Design]

1. BS - still doing renditions n/t

[derby378]

2. Now let him prove it

I'm still hearing too many stories about Guantanamo and those CIA black sites, not to mention rendition.

If Obama wants to get serious, he can start by supporting prosecution for anyone who waterboarded al-Qaeda suspects in our name.

[sharp_stick]

4. How can you prove a negative?

There is no possible way that I'm aware of to prove that the US does not torture. There is no possible way to prove that they no longer rendition detainees no matter what they say.

[derby378]

8. Okay, you got me there - but I maintain that Obama can do much more

First, there's this bullshit about not holding anyone at OLC liable for the opinions the White House ordered them to come up with in order to justify or legalize torture. This whole "I was only following orders" defense needs to be scrapped, and folks like Bybee should stand before a jury of their peers to explain themselves.

Also, Obama could step back from preventing trials for any CIA agent who waterboarded a suspect while staying within the confines of those OLC memos. Torture is torture, and we as a nation are supposed to be better than this.

[sharp_stick]

12. There's nothing to disagree with there

I was trying to make the point that our reputation is screwed no matter what happens in the future. We are now a nation that has been proven to torture prisoners and that will stick with us into the foreseeable future. No matter what happens, in the future when some al-queda or taliban scumbag starts saying that he was tortured, even with all the denials in the world, there will be a bit of doubt.

I'm not that interested in the prosecution of CIA agents, I'd much rather they come out and tell us who told them to do it. I want them to go after those that ordered them to do it. Shrub, Cheney, Gonzalez, CIA directors, Bybee, Yoo and those two "pretend" experts from the SERE school that had the brilliant idea to do this in the first place.

It will be interesting to see what Holder comes up with, based on the history of the CIA and it's too close ties with the Executive Branch in this country I'm not holding out much hope but we'll see.

[No Elephants]

22. Has he even claimed to have ended extraordinary rendition, though?

"The US no longer tortures," even if technically 100% true, does not eiminate the possiblity of extraordinary rendition.

[shadowknows69]

3. Empty words until we punish our own for attrocities already inflicted.

[Soylent Brice]

5. beat me to it. n/t

[grahamhgreen]

7. +2

[Vincardog]

9. Prosecute those that inflicted it and THOSE THAT ORDERED IT

[shadowknows69]

11. Indeed and obviously.

[saigon68]

24. Nothing has changed ---Cheney et al are still LIVING LARGE

WAR CRIMINAL CHENEY laughs at this

So does this CREATURE

THE AWOL CHIMPANZEE

[Iowa]

33. Yep. Empty words by a torturer protector...

By busting his butt to give torturers a free pass, Obama has aligned himself with torturers and has zero credibility on this. It will take a new President with an appropriate sense of moral outrage to prosecute those who instituted torture (Bush administration), and repudiate those who protected and enabled the torturers (Obama administration).

Obama's behavior is akin to the Vatican and the Catholic Bishops... they may not have abused all those kids themselves, but they protected and covered for those who did. And the world reacted with utter contempt, as it should have.

[grahamhgreen]

6. Is he admitting that torture took place BEFORE he made the statement,

"On my first day in office, I prohibited - without exception or equivocation - the use of torture by the United States of America."


If so, then those who issued the directives to torture must be prosecuted.


Or is he saying that it was not prohibited by law before hand? Because it has always been illegal in this country, not just after his directive.

To not prosecute is to be complicit in torture.

[Selena Harris]

26. Helgerson admits torture preceded CIA documents

News results for former cia inspector confirms bbc torture
Popular Science Terror suspects and torture: former CIA inspector general confirms ...‎ - 1 day ago
The former CIA inspector general, John Helgerson, has confirmed that the Bush administration authorised the CIA to use a harsh interrogation method on ...BBC News - 375 related articles »


Former CIA Inspector General confirms BBC torture report ...Former CIA Inspector General confirms BBC torture report. Source: BBC Author: Hilary Anderson. Posted on 09.22.09 by Mary Lou Seymour ...
www.rationalreview.com/content/69947 - Similar
Former CIA Inspector General Confirms BBC Torture Report ...Former CIA Inspector General Confirms BBC Torture Report By Hilary Andersson September 22, 2009 "BBC" Sept 21, 2009 --- The former CIA inspector general, ...
www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23556.htm - 21 hours ago - Similar

[Strong Atheist]

31. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[hmorehead]

10. SOUNDS good, but GWB said that, too.

[sharp_stick]

13. There's no way to change that

as a country that has now been proven to have tortured prisoners in the past there will now always be the possibility that we are still doing it.

You can thank Bush and his minions at the CIA and in the Justice Department for that.

[JDPriestly]

16. There are ways to make it less likely that it will happen in the future.

Obama's statements are so much hot air. We need investigations and prosecutions on this. If we don't get them, a future president will torture. That's the way these things work. It's not a political matter. It is a moral matter. When a government can torture, there can be no justice. When a government can torture, when it is even remotely possible that a government can torture, there is no freedom.

The right to free speech is the most fundamental of our rights.

But, without the right to remain silent, the right to free speech is meaningless. Torture deprives a prisoner of the right to remain silent.

[hmorehead]

32. The problem is tha Clinton did it, GWB did it and the President is doing it , too

What's going to make it stop??

[Old Hob]

34. actually, that sounds really really really bad.

think about it.

[dipsydoodle]

14. Did his nose grow longer

as he said that ?

[Cha]

27. Your clueless fucking dissing just

got fatter.

[JDPriestly]

15. Obama's edict means that there will be no torture as long as he is president.

Unless those who authorized and condoned the torture are investigated, charged and convicted, a future president can reinstate torture, can use it again, can authorize it again.

With regard to torture, we do not need investigations and as appropriate prosecutions to punish bad people. W do not need them to make a political point. We need investigations and as appropriate prosecutions in order to establish and clarify tee law about how torture is defined and whether a future president has the authority to order that it is within the rule of law just as Obama has ordered that it is not within the rule of law.

Obama is not a monarch. Whether torture is legal or not has to be decided by the law including but not limited to a court decision on the law that exists.

I do not believe that Congress has changed the law on this since the torture took place. Bush's Justice Department and White House lawyers wrote opinions on this. Only the courts can determine whether the torture was legal and if they determine that it was then Congress needs to get into action and change the law. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment to make our rights clearer in this 21st century.

The president does not have the authority to just make any law he wants. We have a process for making and interpreting law.

[Winterblues]

18. We understand that but every world leader and in fact every person throughout the world

can't figure that one out..:sarcasm:

[JDPriestly]

19. It's one big giggly slumber party. Everybody's happy as long as no

"world leaders" go to jail for anything. They can murder, rape, torture -- they are immune. And that immunity applies to American leaders just as it does to other leaders. We are not talking about adultery here. We are talking about torture.

As I pointed out, our most fundamental right is freedom of speech. But there really is no freedom of speech without the freedom to remain silent. Bush deprived people of the freedom to remain silent. Bush robbed people of their freedom. That violates one of the two fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

23. Not necessarily. See Reply 22. And, of course, we need prosecutions to punish

people.

". Whether torture is legal or not has to be decided by the law including but not limited to a court decision on the law that exists."

The law already says torture is illegal, and the law also requires us to prosecute. And a court does not decide things in the abstract. Someone has to prosecute in order to get the issue before a court before a court can decide anything. If you don't prosecute, you prevent that.

"The president does not have the authority to just make any law he wants."

Who said he did? He does not have to make laws. The Executive Branch has both the authority AND THE LEGA OBIGATION to prosecute torture under existing laws. Obama said no prosecutions, though, so long as the actions were within the bogus legal opinions. He did not have to say that. And, in saying that, he violates the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a party.

Would a legal opinion that Hitler's lawyer told someone to generate have been a defense at Nuremberg?

[grahamhgreen]

29. If people who are secretley rendered to secret prisons are tortured, we will never know.

That's why his defense of rendering is indefensible.

[Wilms]

17. OK. So he prohibited torture on his "first day in office". Then what happened?

:shrug:

[bertman]

20. I'll give President Obama credit for a step in the right direction. Another one today

with the revamping of the way documents are classified as national security secrets.

Not perfect, but a helluva lot better.

[Solly Mack]

21. Prosecute the war criminal executive (Bush administration)

that would be living the values espoused by America too

[ThePantaloon.com]

28. We second this

War crimes are not things "we put behind us." They should be prosecuted no matter who the criminal is.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. "Show me the indictments"

Sounds good but I want to see the indictments on the head honchos in order to have proof in the pudding


"All the proof of a pudding is in the eating."

[IndianaGreen]

30. Obama is keeping rendition

and has waffled on torture.

I am starting to miss Bill Clinton's triangulations.