Nothing to See

Blogger appears to be back on track.

Obama continues to protect the torturers and block investigations. I am done with him.

18 Comments. Leave new

  • oh don't give up on Obama yet Ted.
    Wait till the next hundred days.

  • Yeah I really don't get why he's turning into such a wimp here. He doesn't even have to take the political fall for it, other people are calling for it. Hopefully this is just an act and he just wants to appear above it. Why do the good guys always have to be such pansies?

  • Aggie,
    We are judged by our actions. Obama is not one of the good guys. Think about it: How would you feel about Obama if you were in Gitmo, and preparing to be transferred to Bagram?

  • Cyril the Cynic
    April 25, 2009 7:03 PM

    Never heard of 'realpolitik', Ted?

  • The path of least resistance would be to send them to a court such as the PCA in The Hague and write a check for whatever damages they demand.

    I can't imagine he is courting the right wing. They won't stop or even lessen their 24/7 multi-media attacks on him. In fact, they would find it hard to boost their level of vindictive rhetoric if tomorrow he crowned himself Caliph, closed Congress and the SCOJ, and changed the USA into communist economy.

  • The Reverend Mr. Smith
    April 25, 2009 11:33 PM

    if tomorrow he crowned himself Caliph, closed Congress and the SCOJ, and changed the USA into communist economy.

    C'mon. That's totally second term stuff. I honestly don't think he'll have one. Huckabee/Norris in 2012. The Mayans predicted it.

  • What about realpolitik? Exactly what material policies or objectives would be put in danger by prosecuting torturers?

    I can't stand it when pundits talk about how Obama can't spend time in torture because he's got such a full plate. Last time I checked the Department of Justice isn't involved in the bailouts, either war, fixing the economy, or negotiating North Korean disarmament. And it's not like Obama has to stand over someone's shoulder, demanding that they keep reading all of the torture memos (or as they'll likely be referred to in a few years, the torture statements against interest).

    So, after telling the attorney general to go and get everyone involved in torture, what exactly will Obama have to do that's going to take up so much of his time?

    And don't tell me it's a political liability – in 2010 everyone who attacked him for actually punishing criminals will have to deal with campaign ads calling them 'torture sympathizers'. Who on the Democratic side woudln't want to run against a torture sympathizer?

    There's no stupider statement I've heard about all of this than the idea that they 'don't want officials looking over their shoulders, worried about future prosecutions' before they make any decision.

    Really? Because that's exactly what we want. I can't think of another single change that might do more to help public policy in America than to have every single government official have to pause for a moment and think 'wait – am I going to go to jail for this?' before each and every thing they do.

    In an unrelated note, how long until all the world's spellchecks stop telling people Obama is likely a typo?

  • Obama might not be a wimp. He just might be indifferent to torture.

    Besides, in the grand scheme of war crimes, torture is small potatoes relative to the million or so Iraqis killed as a consequence of the US invasion. If he's indifferent to the deaths of a million, I don't see why he'd sweat over waterboarding dozens.

  • Uncle Bruno,

    Whether Obama is a wimp is immaterial. By releasing the memo and not prosecuting the offenders, he picked the worse possible choice.

    There's either two possibilities. Either we need people kidnapping and torturing to keep us safe or we don't. If we need the services of people like that, the only legal protection we can extend them is suppressing any paper trail that could connect them to their deeds beyond a reasonable doubt. A civilized society cannot condone torture. To claim its legal in some cases because of a poorly reasoned memo is asinine.

    On the other hand, lets say we don't need torturers. Throw the bastards who ordered and oversaw torture in jail. I cannot think of any individual who should be removed from society more urgently than one who thinks it is possible to torture in "good faith".

    By releasing the memos Obama is obligated to prosecute. To do otherwise is to blatantly ignore the rule of law. At least Bush had the decency to try to hide his lawlessness a little bit.

  • I hope and think that he will be dragged to appoint a spl prosecutor and "forced" to enable the justice department to indict all of the people who did the deeds, planned them, excused them and ordered them

    he just does NOT want to get out in front on this.

    maybe I'm worng. The state secrets crap, the "if we don't release the wiretaps they're legal defense and some other exec reaches are worrysome.

  • "So, after telling the attorney general to go and get everyone involved in torture, what exactly will Obama have to do that's going to take up so much of his time?"

    "By releasing the memos Obama is obligated to prosecute."

    "I hope and think that he will be dragged to appoint a spl prosecutor and [be] "forced" to enable the justice department to indict all of the people who did the deeds, planned them, excused them and ordered them."

    no, no, no, no, NO. it's amazing how many otherwise smart, politically engaged people seem to have slept their way through high school civics. obama doesn't have to do ANYTHING, and in fact, isn't SUPPOSED to do anything. it isn't his place to prosecute ANYBODY. it's the attorney general's job to do that.

    the AG is supposed to be independent of the white house when it comes to deciding who gets prosecuted– the president has NO say about it. the founders set it up that way on purpose, to prevent political considerations from influencing enforcement of the law. in other words, to prevent the very situation which obama is trying to use as an excuse ("it will harm the bipartisan consensus he's trying to build and prevent him from getting things done"). his excuse is nothing but a red herring, because the DOJ is independent and therefore insulated from those kinds of political issues, and that is BY DESIGN.

    obama's proper role in the torture "debate" is to shut his yap and stay out of the AG's way. in fact, it's actually inappropriate for him to even be voicing an opinion about whether there should be torture prosecutions. and it is absolutely most definitely NOT his place to "tell the attorney to go and get" anyone. in matters of law enforcement, the buck stops with the AG, not the president. obama's only appropriate role is to butt the fuck out and let holder do his job.

  • Marion Delgado
    April 27, 2009 5:33 PM

    I don't agree with Ted.

    I AM ecstatic about this cartoon.

    Also, Obama's actual stance is irrelevant.

    He's already reversed himself somewhat in our favor on this issue. He shouldn't get any cookies until he capitulates, which won't happen.

  • What did you expect him to do? Invite assassination?

  • I miss the good old days when the big news was a presidential blow job. Why oh why didn't we vote for Edwards?

  • These self-righteous rants of single-issue voters (which, btw, being a single issue voter is about the dumbest position you can take)amuse the heck out of me. Yeah, you're "done" with Obama, Rall. What are you going to do? Hand the country back to the Republicans so they can finish destroying it? Throw your vote away on someone who doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning under the current system, which results in handing the country back to the Republicans to be destroyed?

    Face it Rall, you may not like what he's doing but he was (and is) the best choice that stood a chance in hell of winning.

    So, be outraged all you like (believe me, I'm not thrilled that we tortured-but that's not the be all or end all of everything) but don't pretend that your single issue outrage means much of anything.

    Or that you're "done" with Obama- unless your plan is to hand the country back to the Republicans to destroy. And if it is have the intellectual honesty to admit that instead of going on and on with these silly, single-issue rants.

  • Devil does have a good point. However in my defense (at least), I don't really think the government at the highest level has operated the way it's supposed to in my lifetime, which began post Watergate.

    Therefore, I can understand the mistake.

  • Obama was selected and his election was financed and blessed
    by the powers-that-be, to continue on the same track of W Bush's policies with minor cosmetic changes and make-belief bullshitting but without any real substance.
    He is just a front with a black
    face, tooth-past smile and good
    oratory to bullshit the population. The bullshitting is
    very successful so far.

  • Blue Fielder
    May 3, 2009 7:57 PM

    "All sound and fury, signifying nothing." That's you, Rall. Whoop-de-fuck, you're "done". Who the fuck cares? Some of us aren't just going to roll over and let the country slip back into the Bush era. Some of us think we might give this democracy experiment a try.

    But you? Keep your outrage. If it makes you feel big, stay with it.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
css.php