Destor on Ordering a Pizza Conservatively in Texas
Ramona: Hatred in a Lovely Church
Gallup: Obama 46, Romney 46
|
Destor on Ordering a Pizza Conservatively in Texas Ramona: Hatred in a Lovely Church Gallup: Obama 46, Romney 46 |
Read |
When I heard that Obama was reversing course on the torture photographs, initially I was extremely disappointed. I thought that he may be bowing to conservative pressure - or was possibly protecting some Democrats who were in too deep.
Then I remembered who I was talking about. This wasn't some shady politician (sure - Republicans say what you will - but you are a laughing stock so no one cares) - this was Barack Obama. He inspired me to give my time and money (more than I could afford) to his campaign. I did so because I truly believed that he was the best person for the job. I made that decision after reading his writing, and the listening to him speak. What struck me most was not his eloquence and ability to give you chills when he gave a speech. It wasn't even something he spoke directly about. What made me sure he was the best candidate to get us through the enormity of challenges we now face (Thank you so much Bush/Cheney, etc.) is simply the way he thinks through a problem.
A perfect example of this came when the decision was made to release the Torture memos. Below is an excerpt from a story run in the Washington Post April 24, 2009:
"Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day."
The story goes into great detail about the positions on both sides, but it is clear that Obama gave both sides a chance to present their argument, then he made his decision after a weighing of all of the facts. Combine this with his other fantastic traits, and he's the perfect person to help us clean the stain of blood and shame that George and Dick et. al left us with.
I then looked at my initial reaction and asked myself some tough questions. Was the reason I wanted those pictures out so bad because like most people look when I drive by a car crash? Was it based on my need to have even more reasons to tell Dick Cheney to STFU and go to his rat-hole and die? Did the release of those photo's have an effect on my daily life? I'll keep the answers to those questions to myself - but I will share the question that made me realize Obama is absolutely the right decision, at least the right decision for now.
What would I do if I were a young man in Pakistan - my country being taken over by the Taliban. What if the Taliban asked me to join them? What if I shared their faith - although never to that extreme - but was searching for meaning in my life (as do so many young people regardless of their birthplace). Would I join?
Before the release of these additional photos, when it is just words conveying the message of what we did to various suspected terrorists, I might not have.
Show me picture after picture of Islamic brothers being sexually abused, anally raped with objects and forced to endure unimaginably horrifying torture and I'd grab a scimitar and try to cut the fucking heads off any white person I could find. That might just be my breaking point. Words are one thing. A picture like that never leaves you. It is used for motivation, and it can be used to convince you that you are doing the right thing, no matter how heinous that thing is. It might convince you that the kidnapped 18 year old human rights worker in front of you sitting in a puddle of his own urine REALLY does deserve to be tortured then brutally murdered. It might convince you that your God, (in your mind the only real God, sound familiar Christians) wants - no - commands you to do this.
We have people in this Country who will blow up abortion clinics and beat or kill gay people just for being gay. They do this because they believe their God supports them. Imagine if those same Christian Extremists were pushed even farther. What if a group started torturing pregnant Christian Women? How many extremists would be created then? How many mild mannered good family men who are moderate would instantly do whatever it took to stop this?
Pakistan is a dangerous place right now. They have nuclear weapons. The Taliban right now probably isn't strong enough to obtain nuclear fuel let alone weapons. But what if - overnight - their recruitment percentages went up 4000%? What would happen to our brave men and women fighting (whether we agree with the war or not) over there? Would that not embolden the Taliban and convince them they are right? And would it not be the trigger event that convinces even moderate Pakistani youth that they must stand up for their God.
Miss California, Carrie Prejean ignorantly blamed the devil for trying to convince her to take the easy way out and lie about her bigoted feelings about gay people. I mention this absurdity to contrast with what would be a real moral test. Imagine the decision that would face many youths in the Muslim Countries if these photos are released?
The fact that we tortured is inexcusable. The wrongdoers should be punished. The people supporting these evils are lacking a moral compass - or it's pointing in the wrong direction. The World must know that we are no longer the Country of "do what we want, when we want, damn the consequences and whoever might get hurt, and just be glad to bask in the glow that is Christian America". I believe we will get there - eventually
One last thing. I know some of you (not all) get so outraged and outspoken partly because you are looking for a reaction. But really - if these photos are not released right now is it going to effect your daily life? Most of us have not been asked to bear the burden of this conflict. Most of us have never served our Country at all. Maybe this is one thing we can all do to give a little bit back to those who do serve. Maybe we can trust that Obama considered all options, and decided this was the best choice we had. Maybe we can rally behind our leader, and give him the support he will need to fight off attacks by the Right and allow him to continue the great work he has started. He's only been in office for a few months, yet he has faced challenges few people on this Earth have or will ever have to face. Maybe, just maybe, we can act like the Americans of yesteryear and sacrifice - just a little. A very little.
The issue of sexual assaults on American Indian women has become one of the major sources of discord in the current debate between the White House and the House of Representatives over the latest reauthorization of the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
.......
“We should never have a woman come into the office saying, ‘I need to learn more about Plan B for when my daughter gets raped,’ ” said Charon Asetoyer, a women’s health advocate on the Yankton Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, referring to the morning-after pill. “That’s what’s so frightening — that it’s more expected than unexpected. It has become a norm for young women.”
The difficulties facing American Indian women who have been raped are myriad, and include a shortage of sexual assault kits at Indian Health Service hospitals, where there is also a lack of access to birth control and sexually transmitted disease testing. There are also too few nurses trained to perform rape examinations, which are generally necessary to bring cases to trial.
By Ismail Kahn, New York Times, May 23/24, 2012
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A Pakistani doctor who helped the Central Intelligence Agency pin down Osama bin Laden's location under cover of a vaccination drive was convicted on Wednesday of treason and sentenced to 33 years in prison, a senior official in Pakistan said.
A tribal court here in northwestern Pakistan found the doctor, Shakil Afridi, guilty of acting against the state, said Mutahir Zeb Khan, the administrator for the Khyber tribal region [....]
By Sergei L. Loiko, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2012
MOSCOW — Stiff new penalties aimed at opposition protesters were given preliminary approval Tuesday by Russian lawmakers loyal to President Vladimir Putin, the target of mass rallies and demonstrations before his March election victory.
The bill, which opposition parliament members termed draconian and protested by threatening to file out of a legislative session, calls for fines of up to $50,000 and up to 200 hours of community service for organizers of rallies and demonstrations that grow violent or exceed the approved number of participants.
The sanctions were approved on first reading by parliament's lower house, which is controlled by Putin's United Russia party. They mark a return by the Kremlin to a tough stance against critics after concessions during the recent election campaign [...]
Also see:
Russians back Putin, strong leadership
Washington Post, May 22, 2012
A Pew survey of 1,000 Russians found that President Vladimir Putin is well-liked by more than 70 percent of citizens, especially older adults.
Associated Press, May 21, 2012
HAVANA — It was all sunshine, smiles and celebratory speeches as officials marked the arrival of an undersea fiber-optic cable they promised would end Cuba's Internet isolation and boost web capacity 3,000-fold. Even a retired Fidel Castro had hailed the dawn of a new cyber-age on the island.
More than a year after the February 2011 ceremony on Siboney Beach in eastern Cuba, and 10 months after the system was supposed to have gone online, the government never mentions the cable anymore, and Internet here remains the slowest in the hemisphere. People talk quietly about embezzlement torpedoing the project and the arrest of more than a half-dozen senior telecom officials.
Perhaps most maddening, nobody has explained what happened to the much-ballyhooed $70 million project....
By Tamasin Ford in Monrovia, Guardian.co.uk, May 22, 2012
Husbands, not strangers or men with guns, are now the biggest threat to women in post-conflict west Africa, according to a report by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) released on Tuesday.
The IRC report, Let Me Not Die Before My Time: Domestic Violence in West Africa, based on data collected over 10 years by the IRC in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast, said domestic violence is the "most urgent, pervasive and significant protection issue for women in west Africa" [.....]
Question: Were CIA operatives, who destroyed video evidence of torture, likewise serving national interests?
Follow-up: Did Obama endanger national interests by releasing the torture memos?
Obama wants to hide the 2000 plus pictures because they LOOK bad.
Obama wants you to trust him that they are not THAT bad.
Uncle TOM or Uncle Sam?
"Just a few bad apples"
Just a suggestion: Uncle Tom might not be the most appropriate reference.
I'm torn on this. While I see your point, Kala, Obama's rationale is a little too reminiscent of what we heard from Bush for 8 years:
I remain torn on how to address the fact that we tortured, but I still think that all of the information should see the light of day.
And by the way, on Monday Ted Koppel and a couple other guests were on NPR's Talk of the Nation, talking about the past, present, and future of torture in and by the United States. It was a great discussion and you can get the podcast at npr.org.
Sorry, that should read, "While I see your point, Rev..." You keep changing your avatar. I'm very easily confused.
Also, I just read more about it. If it's true that United States citizens raped children in order to force "confessions" from their parents, with the knowledge and approval of the White House...
I can't even finish that sentence. I can't get my mind around it. But I definitely don't want to see pictures of it.
If that's what really happened and we don't respond, then many people, both here and abroad, will have good reason to believe that the rule of law is meaningless in America. Pictures or no.
I really dig the Kopp. It's usually a good listen when he's on.
Hmm, your nome de plume is a bit cumbersome. I'm going to call you "also-ran".
I come at this differently, from the perspective of someone who did not trust Obama would stand up for the principles he campaiged on when faced with tough criticism. And in this case, he is cosigning on the argument GWB made for years. You are not agreeing with Obama, you are agreeing with Bush and Cheney and Rove etc etc etc . This is not about protecting the troops. It's about not embarrassing our country by having those images released to the world. Candidate Obama knew that and campaigned on it. President Obama caved to criticism from the right.
From President Obama's Memorandum on FOIA:
I come at this from a third direction, from the perspective of someone who supported Obama from the beginning, but who has also always recognized the political animal in him (he wouldn't have gotten as far as he has without it).
There are valid reasons not to release the torture photos, such as respect for those who were tortured. I'm skeptical as to whether the reasons being used are valid, but I am willing to give the shadow of the doubt as long as the truly important part, prosecuting those guilty up to the highest levels, is followed through on. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that will happen.
Like Orlando, I've been waffling, but this comment helps clear the fog for me. Thanks, Nebton. In my opinion, government transparency is not an end in itself and not even necessarily a good thing. Public outcry over shocking revelations makes me squirm. But it serves an important purpose in checking government excess. Without the risk of the outcry or proscecution, the government would be even less restrained.
So as Nebton suggests, if there is prosecution, the end is served, regardless of publishing the photos. But if that does not happen, either because of self-protection or because there is simply not a good legal case, then I say, role the presses.
If even half of what I've read is true, then I have a hard time believing that it's possible for there not to be a good legal case, but I'd love to hear from you, A-man, or others with or without legal expertise who could argue for why that might be.
The new revelations that I've heard about seem more related to ethics than law. That is to say, torturing someone to get information that justifies an invasion of Iraq is more reprehensible than torturing someone to get information that prevents an attack, and it could warrant the maximum penalty, but it's not more illegal. If it's illegal torture, it's illegal torture.
Those who directed and conducted the interrogations will argue that the they did not believe the methods constituted torture. It seems likely to me that a court will rule that water-boarding is torture, but for criminal culpability, it will also have to rule that the defendants interpretation of the law was unreasonable. I've no idea how hard that is, but it doesn't seem easy, especially since they had legal advice to that effect.
Here's a link that argues for a legal case: http://washingtonindependent.com/465/using-law-to-justify-torture