Which comes closest to your views about President Obama and torture

[ProSense]

Poll question: Which comes closest to your views about President Obama and torture

[hlthe2b]

1. None of the above...though I do support Obama.

He is, like all our Presidents to date, a political opportunist. He has viewed the "landscape" and sees no opportunity to decisively enact policies to stop all torture conducted by the US. I don't know to what extent he believes that torture is a necessary "evil," or whether it is simply that he can not find the way to end it as policy. Everyone can put their own value judgments on that reality, but it is the true, yet disheartening reality as I see it.

[Radical Activist]

23. If Obama really cared about torture he would have done something about it the day he took office.

[hlthe2b]

32. that thought haunts me as well...

[Radical Activist]

35. Actually, he did.

I was being ironic.

http://washingtonindependent.com/26918/obama-torture

Ex-CIA Official: Torture Ban a ‘Great Leap Forward’

President Barack Obama took a major step toward undoing the interrogation and detention policies of the Bush administration on Thursday, issuing four executive orders that lay out an unequivocal path to closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, constructing a new legal and policy architecture for terrorism detainees, and ending the CIA’s so-called “enhanced interrogation” regime.

Both civil libertarians and ex-CIA officials involved in interrogations and detentions policies hailed the changes.

“It’s a great leap forward in terms of respect for human rights,” said John Kiriakou, the retired CIA official who supervised the early interrogation of Al Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydah in 2002. “From the very beginning, the CIA should not have been in the business of enhanced interrogation techniques and detentions.” CIA interrogators waterboarded Abu Zubaydah, but not while Kiriakou supervised the interrogation.

Under the executive orders issued Thursday, the CIA’s interrogators cannot question detainees using “any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3.” That manual was rewritten by the Army in 2006 to reemphasize its compliance with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. laws banning torture. The Bush administration took an unyielding stance toward exempting CIA interrogations from that manual and those laws. But the Obama administration revoked all Bush administration executive orders from September 11, 2001 onward “concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals,” and directed the attorney general to conduct a thorough review of all other “directives, orders, and regulations” on the subject issued by the Bush administration that are no longer applicable.

[hlthe2b]

42. Did he ban rendition as well?

I thought not.

[Radical Activist]

46. Well, that certainly makes everything else he did meaningless.

Along with the additional oversight he added to rendition, beyond what existed during the Clinton administration.

[hlthe2b]

47. Could you calm down? I asked a question...

Geebus, why must you be on such a hair trigger for perceived insult? It is not as though I'm not willing go give him credit for what he HAS done. I assume the answer then, is that he has not addressed rendition. :shrug:

[Radical Activist]

48. That's what creating an environment of hostility like DU does.

It's one of the ways right-wingers try to destroy every online forum.

[hlthe2b]

49. Maybe... but right now, it is just the two of us...

I have not given your reason to be hostile with me.

[elehhhhna]

2. His torture policy seems to b e" Don't ask; don't tell".

[Voice for Peace]

10. !!

you're right, that's exactly how it seems.

[mix]

31. zing nt

[tekisui]

3. Weird poll.

I don't think Obama supports torture. He doesn't believe that the torture that has been done by the US is worth uncovering. He doesn't want to bring those who ordered, facilitated and carried out the torture to justice.

I guess my choice in this poll would be Obama is ambivalent to torture, and I do not support that position.

[xchrom]

6. +1 - well said. Nt

[ProSense]

8. Nothing weird about it.

I don't think Obama supports torture. He doesn't believe that the torture that has been done by the US is worth uncovering. He doesn't want to bring those who ordered, facilitated and carried out the torture to justice.

I guess my choice in this poll would be Obama is ambivalent to torture, and I do not support that position.

The poll specifically asked whether or not the President supports torture, there is nothing ambivalent about it.

You respond that you don't think he supports torture (no ambivalence), but then you introduce another opinion unrelated to the poll.

[tekisui]

11. Push poll. I explained that it is not as black and white as you suggest.

[ProSense]

13. It's not a push poll.

Not in the slightest. Either yes he supports it, or no he doesn't support it, and you support him in his position or not. Simple as that.

You want it to be something that it's not. It's pretty clear who supports and doesn't support the President, and that's their choice, but don't pretend that this is something it's not.

[tekisui]

14. Push poll.

It is not that simple. He may not support, as is participate, in torture. But, that does not mean I support his position on torture, because that is not the extent of the issue. He doesn't support the pursuit of holding known torturers accountable. He favor politics over justice and suppression of evidence over transparency in regards to torture.

Take a step back. It is not an either/or.

[ProSense]

16. Convoluted:

It is not that simple. He may not support, as is participate, in torture. But, that does not mean I support his position on torture, because that is not the extent of the issue. He doesn't support the pursuit of holding known torturers accountable. He favor politics over justice and suppression of evidence over transparency in regards to torture.

Take a step back. It is not an either/or.

The poll didn't ask if you supported his position on torture. It specifically asked whether or not he supports torture and whether or not you support him. It basically gives a yes or no in each category.

[tekisui]

18. False frame.

I don't even know what it means when you say "do you support him".

I look at each issue, and base my support of that issue on the actions.

Your overly broad and generalized issue presented in this poll is torture. There are many facets to the debate on torture. I do not wholly support Obama's positions on the various facets.

Push poll.

[ProSense]

19. "I don't even know what it means when you say 'do you support him'."

You don't understand what supporting him means?

"I look at each issue, and base my support of that issue on the actions.

Your overly broad and generalized issue presented in this poll is torture."

What difference it make? If you oppose him on torture (because you believe he tortures), but support him on other issues, that means you believe he tortures and support him.

I believe Bush tortured, and I didn't support him. Period. I would not support President Obama if I believe he condoned torture. Support is an overall position, which includes his re-election. It's as simple as that.

[tekisui]

24. "What difference does that make?"

"What difference it make? If you oppose him on torture (because you believe he tortures), but support him on other issues, that means you believe he tortures and support him."

Please don't try to speak for me. I don't believe he tortures, but I do believe he is not interested in pursuing the known torturers. You admit yourself you believe bush tortured. I can support Obama on the issues I believe his is correct on, but cannot support his 'looking forward' position on previous acts of torture.

"I believe Bush tortured, and I didn't support him. Period. I would not support President Obama if I believe he condoned torture. Support is an overall position, which includes his re-election. It's as simple as that. "

Support is not an overall position, not in the least. I can vote for him again, even I don't support all of his positions. Let me ask you, do you support ever action and inaction Obama has ever made? Every position he has taken as President? I would find that truly remarkable. By your standard it is all or none. I support issues and positions, not personalities.

[ProSense]

28. "Please don't try to speak for me. I don't believe he tortures"

I wasn't speaking for you. You seem to want to make this about something it isn't. You stated that you don't believe he tortures, and that you support his position on certain issues: "I can vote for him again, even I don't support all of his positions."

[tekisui]

29. You seem to want to make this about something it isn't.

Incorrect. It is about torture, that is how I am responding. Maybe you can now see why push polls are so worthless.


I'll let you get the last talking point word.

[Radical Activist]

22. There is an ongoing justice department investigation into Bush era torture crimes.

It's odd that the netroots is so universally uninformed about that fact. It doesn't fit in with the cynics worldview.

[tekisui]

27. Nothing has come of it, nothing will.

The Obama DoJ will never charge or try to true architects of torture.

If they did, it would go a long way to restoring what I believed we were getting when I canvassed in 2008.

[Radical Activist]

39. You have great powers, fortune teller.

Then again, since you falsely denied the existence of any torture investigation, I have to wonder whether your cynicism will lead you astray again.

Although, if you're referring to Bush and Cheney, it's probably true that Obama will never put them on trial. The Constitutionally appropriate way to do that would have been by the House while Bush was still in office. Pelosi blew it and we'll probably never get another chance.

[tekisui]

44. Bush, cheney, gonzo, bybee, yoo, rice, rumsfeld and on down the line.

None of them will be charged or tried. The DoJ could do it, but they won't. It is a cop out to blame Pelosi for Holder/Obama's inaction.

Pelosi can share the blame, but it sure as hell doesn't absolve Obama's DoJ.

[impik]

4. There is not even a shred of evidence that he support torture. Not a shred.

All bunch of conspiracy theories in some fringe blogs, and complaints from people of interest, who can not produce even one lousy evidence.

The so called "progressives" deserves Bush. I hope they'll get one in 2012.

[muffin1]

5. If we "get one",

then you'll "get one", too.

[tekisui]

7. There is evidence that he helped to block investigations into torture.

And that he has worked to suppress further evidence of torture. Support, not likely. At best, he has chosen politics over justice, though, when it comes to torture.

[vaberella]

9. Where is there evidence that he worked to suppress further evidence of torture?!

Can you provide that evidence?

[tekisui]

12. Here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30725189/ns/politics-white_house/

[ProSense]

15. That's your evidence:

an article from May 2009 about an incident everyone was aware of:

<...>

When photos emerged in 2004 from the infamous U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, showing grinning American soldiers posing with detainees — some of the prisoners naked, some being held on leashes — the pictures caused a huge anti-American backlash around the globe, particularly among Muslims.

Obama, explaining his change of heart on releasing the other photos, said they already had served their purpose in investigations of "a small number of individuals." Those cases were all concluded by 2004, and the president said "the individuals who were involved have been identified, and appropriate actions have been taken."

200 investigations
The Pentagon conducted 200 investigations into alleged abuse connected with the photos in question. The administration did not provide an immediate accounting of how they turned out.

"This is not a situation in which the Pentagon has concealed or sought to justify inappropriate action," Obama said of the photos. "In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger."

<...>

Is this when you stopped supporting him?

[tekisui]

17. I don't 'support' individuals. I support positions.

When a politician is in line with me, I support them on that issue. It isn't zero sum. Nice try, though.

Obama blocked the release of more evidence, of previously unseen images.

[ProSense]

21. Which position

are you going to support when he's up for re-election?

[tekisui]

25. I'll tell you when I hear his re-election platform.

One is that he is not a goddamned repuke.

I have supported several actions the past couple years. I have also opposed many. It isn't zero-sum.

[treestar]

20. People are starting to define torture broadly

Since it fits a preconceived position they want to take.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[mix]

26. Torture, atrocity, and coercion are facts of the American empire.

Obama's capitulation to the Bush et al torture regime has nothing to do with his character, it has been long institutionalized and will be difficult to root out, if that is even possible.

Perhaps when the USA renounces its imperial ambitions, which has not occurred during the Obama administration, torture will no longer be necessary.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[harun]

33. Extra-judicial killings, wo a declaration of war and against U.S. citizen's.

Nuff said.

[ProSense]

34. So war criminal = U.S. not failing?

Yikes!

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Fact: torture continues under the Obama administration.

So you are asking people if they accept or don't accept the reality that torture continues under this administration.

[ProSense]

37. Fact:

That's a conspiracy theory.

Got evidence?

[hulka38]

38. The outcome of this poll doesn't alter reality?

[ProSense]

40. Which reality do you think it was designed to alter:

the opinions of those responding?

[hulka38]

41. Why ask me? You designed it. n/t

[timo]

43. THERE WAS NO OPTION OF:

the president does not give a shit what I think or say about what he does and will LIE to us all and expect us to LIKE it!!!!

[Vattel]

45. I see no serious interest on Obama's part

to pass legislation that unabiguously criminalizes waterboarding, etc. Current federal statutes (WCA, Torture Act) don't do so. We need better criminal statutes. Is Obama too stupid to realize this? No, he just doesn't give a shit.

[johnaries]

50. The End of Torture: Obama banishes Bush's interrogation tactics

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/21/the-end-of-torture.html

In perhaps his most far-reaching and potentially controversial move, Obama ordered that the CIA immediately cease using any interrogation techniques that are not already authorized in the U.S. Army Field Manual. He also ordered the CIA to close, "as expeditiously as possible," any secret detention facilities overseas and begin immediate compliance with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "humiliating and degrading" treatment of prisoners.

The Executive Order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/

...Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order. Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.
.....
(a) Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

(b) Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment. Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes. Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense. Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.
......
(a) CIA Detention. The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

Obama ended US torture. Period.

[Vattel]

53. Executive orders prohibiting waterboarding

and other cruel interrogation tecniques help, but the provide only a relatively weak safeguard. The President can reverse or just ignore such an order. We need better criminal statutes.

[LeftyAndProud60]

51. Who got tortured that any of u know of? And I don't care if we torture or not. NT

[DutchLiberal]

52. He supports torture (extraordinary rendition); I don't support him.

It's not okay if the torture is just "outsourced" to the Egyptian or Saudi secret services.

[That Guy 888]

55. Push Poll n/t

[avaistheone1]

56. Repeated thread.

Didn't we just have this same poll last week?