• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama's Complicity in Torturing an Innocent Man

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Barack Obama means change – except on torture | Andrew Sullivan - Times Online

Until now, this scenario has only been a fear. Now we know it was a reality. An astonishing, and largely ignored, judicial ruling issued on September 17 in the case of one Fouad al-Rabiah told us that the US government knowingly tortured an innocent man to procure a false confession.

We know that an American interrogator, operating under the authority of the US government, said the following words to a detainee: “There is nothing against you. But there is no innocent person here. So, you should confess to something so you can be charged and sentenced and serve your sentence and then go back to your family and country, because you will not leave this place innocent.”

That’s from page 41 of the court memorandum and order, releasing al-Rabiah. Al-Rabiah was captured in Pakistan in December 2001. He had an unlikely history for a top Al-Qaeda commander and strategist. He had spent 20 years at a desk job for Kuwait Airways. As the journalist Andy Worthington has painstakingly reported — and the court reiterated — he was also a humanitarian volunteer for Muslim refugees. Yet informants had described him as an Al-Qaeda supporter and confidant of Osama Bin Laden, and before he knew what was happening to him, he was whisked away to Guantanamo.

The informants’ accounts were riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions. In her ruling, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly noted that “the only consistency with respect to [these] allegations is that they repeatedly change over time”. The one incriminating statement was given by another inmate after he had been subjected to sleep deprivation and coercion. So the only option left to prove that al-Rabiah had not been captured by mistake was his own confession.

The interrogators’ notes, forced into the open by the court, gave the game away. In the judge’s words, although “al-Rabiah’s interrogators ultimately extracted confessions from him”, they “never believed his confessions, based on the comments they included in their interrogation reports”. In fact, “the evidence in the record during this period consists mainly of an assessment made by an intelligence analyst that alRabiah should not have been detained”.

That CIA analyst, moreover, had told the justice department this was his judgment. Rather than withdraw the prosecution, however, the decision was made to get al-Rabiah to confess. He didn’t and wouldn’t. So he was subject to sleep deprivation and other unspecified “interrogation techniques” that led him to suffer “from serious depression, losing weight in a substantial way, and very stressed because of the constant moves, deprived of sleep and worried about the consequences for his children”.

...Shockingly, although Barack Obama’s justice department knew the details of this case, it persisted with the Bush administration’s attempt to prosecute him.

This is NOT the change I voted for. I am profoundly disappointed on a level I find hard to articulate.
 
I'm surprised that there are people who still believe that the Dems and Repubs are anything other than two factions of one party. :shrug:
 
Yep. I'm just a naive little mary sunshine who kinda wishes she'd voted for John McCain right now.
 
I don't know what that would have gained, and can think of plenty that it would have lost, referring back to Pat Buchanan's comment that "he will make Cheney look like Gandhi." Whatever opposition he had to torture would have undoubtedly been outweighed by whatever ill-fated interventionist strategies he'd engaged in...
 
I don't know what that would have gained, and can think of plenty that it would have lost, referring back to Pat Buchanan's comment that "he will make Cheney look like Gandhi." Whatever opposition he had to torture would have undoubtedly been outweighed by whatever ill-fated interventionist strategies he'd engaged in...

Could not have said it better myself. I may disagree with Obama a lot, but I would much rather see him in power than McCain and Palin.
 
Andrew Sullivan, about BO, on gay rights (but equally true of BO on torture):

But the point of electing a president who pledged to actually do things is to hold him to account, and to see if he is willing to take any risk of any kind to actually do something.

The thing is...I believe that John McCain would have ENDED torture his first day in office. And, potentially, released people who were innocent by all accounts.

What has Barack Obama actually done in 9 months? seriously. He's given a lot of speeches, that's what he's done.
 
Last edited:
In terms of total infliction of suffering, I suspect that McCain would have been worse because of his greater interventionism, which usually involves more unjust aggression than torture does. That he would have implemented interventionist policies more quickly and effectively isn't something I regard as promising...
 
Andrew Sullivan, about BO, on gay rights (but equally true of BO on torture):



The thing is...I believe that John McCain would have ENDED torture his first day in office. And, potentially, released people who were innocent by all accounts.

What has Barack Obama actually done in 9 months? seriously. He's given a lot of speeches, that's what he's done.


This story is not about torture carried out under the Obama administration. It's about continuing the prosecution of a man who was tortured under the Bush administration. (Which disturbs me, too.)

Obama did end torture his first day in office. Scratch that, his second day in office.
 
Do you believe that Obama has delivered on his promises re: torture from the campaign? How about regarding equal rights for gays/lesbians? Or, reversing government snooping? Or, greater governmental transparency? Or, for that matter, closing the prison at Gitmo?

Forget McCain for a minute...Has Obama delivered the ACTIONS he promised re: torture, illegal imprisonment, free speech violations, and human rights/equality?
 
This story is not about torture carried out under the Obama administration. It's about continuing the prosecution of a man who was tortured under the Bush administration. (Which disturbs me, too.)

Obama did end torture his first day in office. Scratch that, his second day in office.

But he kept an innocent man in prison who was tortured and continues to prosecute him. Thus, the Obama administration IS complicit in torture.

For the record, I am NOT happy with Obama today.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that Obama has delivered on his promises re: torture from the campaign? How about regarding equal rights for gays/lesbians? Or, reversing government snooping? Or, greater governmental transparency? Or, for that matter, closing the prison at Gitmo?

Forget McCain for a minute...Has Obama delivered the ACTIONS he promised re: torture, illegal imprisonment, free speech violations, and human rights/equality?



torture from the campaign? Yes
How about regarding equal rights for gays/lesbians? No
Or, reversing government snooping? No
Or, greater governmental transparency? Yes
Or, for that matter, closing the prison at Gitmo? No
 
torture from the campaign? Yes
How about regarding equal rights for gays/lesbians? No
Or, reversing government snooping? No
Or, greater governmental transparency? Yes
Or, for that matter, closing the prison at Gitmo? No

In what way is his government more transparent? This is TOTALLY arguable.
 
Obama Fails on Transparency | Center for Constitutional Rights

“I could not be more disappointed: In its first real case, the Obama administration has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s policy of secrecy before justice despite all the uplifting rhetoric about transparency. The Bush administration invoked the State Secrets privilege more than any other administration in history to keep embarrassing cases out of court. The question is, when will Obama roll back the illegal expansion of executive power he has inherited?”

Has the Obama administration, for instance, urged the publishing of the Healthcare bill so that U.S. taxpayers and others can actually read it?
 
It's been 9 months, I find that I am running out of patience waiting for "change I can believe in."
 
But he kept an innocent man in prison who was tortured and continues to prosecute him. Thus, the Obama administration IS complicit in torture.

For the record, I am NOT happy with Obama today.



This is a complicated story, I read the Times article, then searched Sullivan's blog b/c he referenced receiving justice dept lawyer emails as a result of blog postings he made about the case. I read those four articles, and the original Worthington article about the ruling which prompted the blog postings.

They were making arguments about prosecuting confessions made after the torture stopped. The judge said there was no clean break b/w the torture-induced confessions and the later confessions.

I guess I agree with the judge, however they were not using torture-produced confessions. Saying they are complicit in torture is not a fair statement, IMO. However, I think I agree with you that this case should not be prosecuted.
 
Last edited:
In what way is his government more transparent? This is TOTALLY arguable.


In many ways. There is not complete transparency, that would not be a Yes answer. There is more transparency. though. Visitor logs are just one example, procedures on FOIA requests is another. There are more.
 
In many ways. There is not complete transparency, that would not be a Yes answer. There is more transparency. though. Visitor logs are just one example, procedures on FOIA requests is another. There are more.

Nonetheless, there are many (important) ways in which the U.S. government is potentially less transparent...not publishing the healthcare legislation is a good example.
 
Nonetheless, there are many (important) ways in which the U.S. government is potentially less transparent...not publishing the healthcare legislation is a good example.


That is the legislative branch, not the executive branch. Obama did make a promise about putting legislation online, once he rec'd it though. Let's see if he does that.
(I think he broke that promise with the S-CHIP legislation ... )
 
In terms of total infliction of suffering, I suspect that McCain would have been worse because of his greater interventionism, which usually involves more unjust aggression than torture does. That he would have implemented interventionist policies more quickly and effectively isn't something I regard as promising...

Have you been keeping up on what is happening in Afghanistan?…Oh wait, that isn’t intervention, that’s just Bushes war, right? :roll:
 
torture from the campaign? Yes
How about regarding equal rights for gays/lesbians? No
Or, reversing government snooping? No
Or, greater governmental transparency? Yes
Or, for that matter, closing the prison at Gitmo? No

You are kidding, right? Do you remember anything about posting legislation online so people could read it before it was voted on? What happened to that?

Do you remember anything about no more earmarks? What happened to that?

How about the amendments done in the dead of night behind closed doors?

Have you ever seen so many people in an administration that couldn't apply for Dog Catcher, yet Barry slipped them in as Czars?... cutting out the vetting process by Congress? Did we get taken over by Russia while I wasn’t looking?

I don't think your little joke is funny at all.
 
Last edited:
A little about torture in the Obama Administration.

On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a number of executive orders purporting to end the Bush administration’s abusive practices in dealing with treatment of terrorism suspects. Before Americans get too elated, however, they should look carefully at the inhumane interrogation practices these orders may still permit.

When first announced, the new president’s executive orders seemed cause for celebration, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to feature a link on its website encouraging visitors to email the president and “Send Him Thanks!”



The ACLU summarized the new orders:



President Obama . . . ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay within a year and the halting of its military commissions; the end of the use of torture; the shuttering of secret prisons around the world; and a review of the detention of the only U.S. resident being held indefinitely as a so-called “enemy combatant” on American soil. The detainee, Ali al-Marri, is the American Civil Liberties Union’s client in a case pending before the Supreme Court.



Like many reacting to the president’s orders, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero expressed unbridled enthusiasm:



These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.[1]



Torture by US officials has long been illegal, but the president’s executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” seems to clarify, to some extent, what activities are proscribed. Disappointingly, though, this order contains loopholes big enough to drive a FEMA camp train through them.



Loophole 1: Torture is prohibited only of persons detained in an “armed conflict.”



The executive order applies only to “armed conflicts,” not counterterrorism operations.



The order states in part:



Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] 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 [emphasis added].

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041

Look at what he does, not at what he says.... usually they are 180 degrees apart.

Isn't this pretty much what he wants to prosecute Bush for?
 
Last edited:
Have you been keeping up on what is happening in Afghanistan?…Oh wait, that isn’t intervention, that’s just Bushes war, right? :roll:

More importantly, have you been keeping up with my posts? I just said that John McCain would have headed an administration that adopted more interventionist policies, not that the present administration wasn't interventionist. :2wave:
 
More importantly, have you been keeping up with my posts? I just said that John McCain would have headed an administration that adopted more interventionist policies, not that the present administration wasn't interventionist. :2wave:

How?... by ramping up the war in Afghanistan? Restrictive ROE's? Not giving the commander in the field the troops he needs? Giving up the gains in the cities of Iraq?

At least McCain knew what war was, Barry thinks he is still campaigning and organizing.
 
Back
Top Bottom