I am not advocating "revenge". I am advocating reality. Captives who are captured by terrorists are usually butchered- many times with the cameras rolling. I'd say we do a much better job than they do. The "torture" the detainees have experienced is at worst aggressive interrogation and at best a fictional political ploy to take the focus away from why these individuals were detained in the first place. There is a difference between telling soldiers to have at some detainees and "torture" them just for the hell of it. The purpose of detaining these people is to get information, not enact revenge. If that's what its all about, then why detain them in the first place? Why not just shoot them in the back of the head and throw them into ocean? No media scrutiny or political red tape-- no one would ever know.
People have died from these 'aggressive interrogation" techniques.
There is no goddam difference btn torturing a person for fun or for a purpose.
The detainees are just that, a person detained. They haven't been tried, they've been accused. Once we start down the path of torturing suspects, we are on the same path as Nazis. The bad guys.
Why? b/c our country has historically honored the notion that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Torture just skips that step of trying a man and tortures him into confessing...much like the Inquisition.
As far as your second point- I'm not sure what your trying to say. If Obama doesn't need republican support to do things, then why is this any different? Why not just release the documents? As I said, it doesn't make sense. I think it is clear he is blackmailing them, not the other way around.
The story uses a source that repeats the intentions of the republican party to go nuclear (i.e., block the votes) on the Obama appointees if Obama permits the Bush notes to be published. Nowhere in the story does it state that Obama is blackmailing the republicans with the Bush notes. Obama campaigned on the idea that government would be more transparent. This is that idea coming to life.
As far as your third point, you lost me again. By your reasoning, if the "torture" you claim was authorized by Bush had been greenlighted by Congress and Obama signed on, then Obama is perfectly justified in supporting torture.
Torture is not domestic spying. Was torture greenlighted by Congress? Or did Congress just offer retro-active immunity to those who committed torture pursuant to Bush's policy?
As Obama has said many times. The US will not torture. That's against the Geneva protocols and the UN Charter.
As far as Bush violating FISA-- How? The Patriot Act really didn't make any wholesale changes to the investigation of terrorism. [ FISA use becomes predicated on substantial purpose versus primary purpose of surveillance for foreign Intel gathering as opposed to criminal prosecution & makes intelligence easier to share between federal agencies] Everything else under the Patriot Act involves using investigative techniques the FBI and CIA have been using for 25+ years to investigate drug trafficking and espionage. Unless your referring to the TSA, which has nothing to do with FISA and involves intercepting domestic calls as long as the President/ NSA believe the other party to the phone call is a member of Al Queda Etc.
The law during the Bush administration was that domestic spying must be accompanied with a warrant either prior to the act or after. Bush got no warrants. He committed a felony under FISA.
The FISA law has been amended to permit warrantless domestic wiretaps. Obama supports that law.
That's a huge difference.
