Young Turks: Obama Admin - Torture Not Illegal, Just A 'Disagreement'

Run time: 07:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCByHBwb340   Posted on YouTube: February 23, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 24, 2010 By DU Member: CherylK Views on DU: 1563

 
Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/y9svzhd

Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks

Check Out TYT Interviews http://www.youtube.com/user/TYTInterviews

Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com

Who was I kidding to think the Obama govt was going to be different..

and the Republicans still hate him. What the fuck is the percentage in this thinking. Why did we all have to read the Diary of Ann Frank if this stuff was going to be allowed to happen in our own country? I don't know whether to run into on coming traffic or pound my head against a brick wall until my brains fall out. This is killing my soul.

Gitmo is still open for business, McChrystal is still hiding prisoners from the ICRC, and Panetta says rendition is a good tool.

Disgusting.

Obama is personally working too hard to defend the people who organized the policies and procedures for torture, and he is continuing all of it in his own administration.

If he was against it, and if his administration was against it, we would have seen some sign of it by now.

Saying he's against it isn't enough. We need actions, not just speeches.

to keep Bush war criminals in his admin or to continue this horrible policy.

This is not "24", this is real. I've been concerned for a long time about the fact that as soon as another Republican gets in, we go right back to Bush's evil ways. You can count on that. There are still a lot of people in this country that think people we call terrorists have no rights and we should start off torturing them.

My father-in-law (pro-Bush) always says, "Can you prove Bush did anything wrong?". Well, no, I can't. I can't personally prove the war happened or that Iraq exists, but based on my observations and my powers of reason, I believe there's at least just cause to investigate whether or not he did.

No, it may well still be happening, and if so, we will go through all of this again.

has bragged about his role in the torture program on television and because thanks to Mark Danner the journalist, the Torture Memos are now public domain.

And unfortunately, in my attempts to keeping following the torture story, I found that McChrystal has outsourced the prisoners from Bagram to our outposts all over Afghanistan, making it very difficult for the ICRC to check on their welfare. There is also a credible report that there is a black site at Bagram. I'm sorry I don't have a link for you (my links are out of control) but if you do want to search this at google, I'm pretty sure it will come right up. :(

They knew what they were doing was wrong because if they really believed it was okay and legal, they'd have been bragging about it before and during the time they tortured those people. You don't hide things that are right and proper.

So with Dems we get some competence with torture on the side?

Just because Regressives serve torture as a main dish, forgive me if I find little cause to be proud.

And it's true that as far as we know it may never have stopped. Maybe I worded that poorly - I'm only saying there are plenty of people that think torturing terrorists is a good idea. I never thought it a good idea because it goes against what we supposedly stand for.

When it comes to this, I'm not for the dems or the repubs - whomever is guilty of perpetrating, carrying it out, or covering it up should be tried and prosecuted.

not the first time I misunderstood.

There is plenty of evidence Obama is continuing Bush's legacy. Of course, there are differences, but not nearly enough.

I do like Obama. I was never one of the ones that thought he was the messiah, but I'll take him over Bush any day. But I am awful disappointed I haven't seen Bush in handcuffs yet. That would make a believer out of me.

Its sad,very sad, to see Barack Obama, who campaigned as a candidate of "Hope and changed" become "hopelessly changed."

are on threads like this?

I find apologist to be significantly less offensive than other words for this group. "Haters" opposite is more appropriately "cheerleaders" imo, but the other group is especially sensitive and can disrupt whenever they like with practically no consequence. Just a heads-up.

Now that they have the means to do so, the moderators are doing their part by tightening civility enforcement a bit. Some behaviors that have been common in the past are now more likely to get your post deleted. One such behavior is the use of unflattering names to refer to groups of DUers. This has had a particularly corrosive effect on discussions of Present Obama's legislative agenda, where it has become common to refer to people as "Obama apologists," "Obama haters," and the like. This type of name-calling is both inflammatory and unnecessary. Instead, use more respectful and specific phrasing like "Obama's critics" or "Obama's defenders" (Or better yet, "critics of President Obama's ___________ proposal" or "supporters of President Obama's ___________ proposal").

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/347

by giving the Bushies a pass?

Anyone protecting them is complicit.

Thanks for the thread, CherylK.