Comments on: State Secrets and Deceit: Obama Embraces CIA Torture

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:25:34 +0000

Dan,
I think your prism of Obama comes from what one can only conclude is an Obama leaning processing of information.

The “danger” Obama poses is that the symbolism and anti-Bush exhaustian has given him vitually no opposition as he builds up war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and continues the occupation of Iraq.

Reviewing Bush’s “signing statements” is not exactly “an amelioration” of the Unitary Executive. It sounds good, as does his closing of Guantanamo in a year with no clear picture of where it goes from there.

The FACT that he has framed the invasion of nations as a “war” on terror should give ALL a pause. The foreign policies are continuing, and it has NOTHING to do with terror and “tamping” it down.

You can return now to the MSM’s version Dan.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:50:31 +0000

I neglected to add, that Obama also ordered a review of ALL Bush Executive Orders and Signing Statements. They are suspended and all Federal Agencies have been instructed not to use them in the conduct of business. This would tend to ameliorate the assertion that Obama intends to fully retain the Bush Junta concept of the “Unitary Executive.” That had to be said. Peace out.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:37:11 +0000

To be fair, Obama ordered the closure of a virtual Archipelago of secret prisons that were CIA run; Guantanamo; investigation and adjudication of pending cases there; adherence to the Army Field Manual for Interrogations. Yes, he left the CIA with it’s “rendition” ability and latitude of operations across the globe. He also, unwisely, used the very language of George Bush, “The United States does not torture.” This would give even the most die hard Obama devotee’ pause, and a foreboding Deja Vu. Thanks for your work here Tom. I’m just discovering your stuff and glad to have found you. If Obama was any more of a perceivable threat to the MIC, he would NEVER have achieved the nomination of the Democratic Party. The fry job he got in the MSM would’ve been terminal. It still may be.

By: kalidas

kalidas — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:03:44 +0000

Obama is an Israeli wet dream.

By: John S. Hatch

John S. Hatch — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:57:23 +0000

If Mr. Obama is against torture, then he shouldn’t be covering up Mr. Mohamed’s despicable treatment, or protecting those responsible.

If Mr. Obama doesn’t quickly change course, his Presidency will be indelibly tainted. I think the world has had enough of Bush. To continue his policies would be to court political suicide, Obama or not.

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:08:49 +0000

Correction: “I have to agree with Tom Burghardt. I think the Obama administration, particularly at this time, is a larger DANGER than his predecessor.”

By: Max Shields

Max Shields — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:06:51 +0000

I have to agree with Tom Burghardt. I think the Obama administration, particularly at this time, is a larger than his predecessor.

His predecessor had opposition. Much of that has been quieted by the African American president who has become more and more bush-like with each day. His administration is hawkish and free market.

But he’s got the peanut gallery slaying Republican dragons while the mischief continues.

Obama is slicker which makes him far more dangerous than Darth Vader and the Bushwacker.

Obama knows when to use language to quiet largest crowd to his left.

Clinton did the same thing. The difference is this baby is collapsing in front of our eyes.

By: Tom Burghardt

Tom Burghardt — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:01:14 +0000

I disagree, CP.

There are two possibilities: either Obama is defending Bushist “unitary executive” privileges via the ACLU case or, covering up torture on these plaintiffs and the “black programs” of the previous administration, while “keeping options open” for the future. How else explain alleged threats to deny U.S. intelligence to their British “partners” and the redaction of Stafford Smith’s evidentiary letter outlining the monstrous abuse of his clients? Keep in mind, throughout the Bush years we were subjected to a deafening barrage of spin: “the U.S. doesn’t torture,” etc. I wasn’t being hysterical, just the stating the facts as I see them. Three weeks into the new administration things are already looking grim.

Thanks in any event for your feedback; reasonable people after all can disagree.

By: CP

CP — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:52:30 +0000

I’ve read all about this story from many different sources, and I agree that President Obama should not be continuing Bush’s abuse of the “state secrets” defense. However, your lede is extremely misleading. Continuing this particular defense in this particular case IS NOT EQUAL to Obama defending the practice of extraordinary rendition leading to torture in foreign countries. You lose credibility by making false equivalencies, and you sound a bit hysterical. I’m just as outraged about this as I presume you to be, but it is possible to be radical while exercising editorial restraint.