Change you CAN'T believe in

Comment #10

jarasan — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:14:05 GMT

I support the troops but not the war, I support Obama but not his executive orders, ask the ten terrorists that were killed crossing into Afghanistan thursday.

Comment #9

justxploring — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:54:39 GMT

Sorry, time*treat. I apologize for this since I posted enough. I need to get my eyes checked I guess. I really do proof my posts. Anyway, last comment should start "By WE I meant you and I." (not "are")

Comment #8

justxploring — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:51:42 GMT

By "We" are meant you and I. Just saying easier said than done. It will come in time. Don't get me wrong. I'm not 100% in support of Obama because he's not perfect. But I just think it's crazy that the man can't fart without every reporter having a comment about it. Some will say it smells, some will say it's aromatic, and others will cry fragrance free, but there will be another one tomorrow and it too will pass.

Comment #7

justxploring — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:25:55 GMT

Rick, although I agree, we're not the leader of a country with over 305 million people where almost everything we say & do affects our country and the world too. We don't have radical groups that vehemently protest every action we take and sometimes threaten violence or retribution. Any lasting change takes time. Have you ever poured bleach on a fabric? It will eat it up and take out all the color permanently. But if you gently wash something and add a little bleach at a time, eventually the stains will begin to fade.... [ More ]

Comment #6

emilyg — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:46:23 GMT

Rick - good comment.

Comment #5

time*treat — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:39:35 GMT

With regard to General Cullen, I think he sums up what many people will be saying in 4 to 8 years when he says â€œI wanted to believe thatâ€. :-) He sounds like a guy who would take "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" as a perfectly acceptable answer. My view is that the next 4 to 8 years are NOT going to be an "undo" of the last 8 (or 16, if you care to go back that far), but rather an extension. You are going to get more of what you thought you just got rid of. ;-) The difference wil... [ More ]

Comment #4

Rick G — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:35:04 GMT

He's taking steps in the right direction but he has to follow up to the hilt. This 'accepted' use of torture (including cop-torture via tasers) has GOT to stop. Some of our DC leaders and law enforcement types may like pulling wings of live flies but let them keep their S & M bullcrap in their bedrooms with their willing boy toys.

Comment #3

justxploring — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:13:04 GMT

Should have said "...and served in Viet Nam understands the wording.

Comment #2

justxploring — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:07:04 GMT

Without giving my opinion, let me just ask if you think a retired Brigadier General, who also has a Law Degree and served in Viet Nam. He was on the Judge Advocate General's Corp (also known as JAG) and he applauds our new President. Here is what he thinks: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/nyregion/24about.html?em Sarah Cleveland is an international human rights expert and Professor of Law at Columbia University. She says "The executive orders are very impressive... [ More ]

Comment #1

Tenaj — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:12:39 GMT

Obama has ordered to close Guantanamo, abolish the secret prisons, and to outlaw torture.

Original Blog Entry: Change you CAN'T believe in

time*treat — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:33:23 GMT

The Torture Ban that Doesn't Ban Torture: Obama's Rules Keep It Intact, and Could Even Accord With an Increase in US-Sponsored Torture Worldwide.

If you're lying on the slab still breathing, with your torturer hanging over you, you don't much care if he is an American or a mere United States - sponsored trainee.

When President Obama declared flatly this week that the United States will not torture many people wrongly believed that he'd shut the practice down, when in fact he'd merely repositioned it.

Obama's Executive Order bans some -- not all -- US officials from torturing but it does not ban any of them, himself included, from sponsoring torture overseas.

Indeed, his policy change affects only a slight percentage of US-culpable tortures and could be completely consistent with an increase in US-backed torture worldwide.

The catch lies in the fact that since Vietnam, when US forces often tortured directly, the US has mainly seen its torture done for it by proxy -- paying, arming, training and guiding foreigners doing it, but usually being careful to keep Americans at least one discreet step removed. ...

That is, the US tended to do it that way until Bush and Cheney changed protocol, and had many Americans laying on hands, and sometimes taking digital photos. ...

For every torment inflicted directly by Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and the secret prisons, there were many times more being meted out by US-sponsored foreign forces.

Those forces were and are operating with US military, intelligence, financial or other backing in Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, Thailand, Uzbekistan, Colombia, Nigeria, and the Philippines, to name some places, not to mention the tortures sans-American-hands by the US-backed Iraqis and Afghans.

(the rest)

www.allannairn.com/2009/01/torture-ban-that-doesnt-ban-torture.html

or www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11 ar=2594

Any loi-ya worth his fee knows it's all in the wording - letter of the law, they call it.

... [ More ]