Posted on 11/30/2008 1:00:31 AM PST by FocusNexus
The president-elect has to take a stand on Bush's dark legacy.
A small and largely unnoticed spat among the transition planners for the president-elect, Barack Obama, broke out last week. It was the first genuinely passionate debate among the Obamaites and it centres on a terribly difficult and terribly important decision that will be among the first that Obama has to make.
How does he deal with the legacy of criminal actions of his predecessor's administration when it comes to detention, interrogation, abuse and torture of terror suspects? That has long hovered in the back of the minds of those of us who supported Obama, in large part because he alone had the moral authority to draw a line underneath the criminality of the George Bush-Dick Cheney years and restore credibility and honour to America's antiterror policies.
At the end of the second world war, US officials prosecuted Nazi lawyers and civilians who tortured no one themselves but came up with legal flimflam to turn war crimes into legal policy. Why not apply the same logic to Bush's legal architects - the men who declared the president was bound by no law and no treaty in subjecting prisoners to torture up to the very edge of death?
And the evidence we now have, undisputed evidence, proves already that war crimes were indeed committed - by the president and vice-president on down. I mean: why else Guantanamo Bay and secret black sites if the president believed he was obeying domestic American law?
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Andrew Sullivan is still senior editor of The New Republic?! He is just plain insane.
Obambi’s first problem was Mumbai .
He already said nothing about it !
Related thread:
Bill Kristol: Before He Goes-What President Bush could accomplish in his final days in office
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2140286/posts
Bill calls for a blanket pardon, and so do I!!
Silly, he voted "present", doesn't that count?!!
If Obama does this it will be at least a year into his ‘rule’ before he ‘reluctantly’ acts.
His stand includes the hiring of Gates!
Sadly, Sullivan was not in the Taj Hotel on Nov 26,2008.
"Us"? What's this "us" stuff? Isn't the writer a Pom? He can no more support Obama than I can support McCain.
Andrew Sullivan deserves to be in the firing line of the next terrorist attack anywhere in the world — maybe in his last fleeting instant of life he would discover that his favorite jihadists are happy to go on killing so long as vermin like Sullivan want to enable the jihad.
Propagandist for the worst filth of humanity, that’s all that Sullivan is......
I think the fate of the civilized world hangs in the balance because of 0 .
Sigh - India you are alone - now
I think he did or actually I think it was an assistant that put out a statement on his behalf. I have a feeling Obama is going to sell out a lot of our Allies.
He wants Russia’s cooperation on Iran so he may look the other way when they threaten the Eastern European countries...Ukraine, Poland, Georgia.
In exchange for the Pakis cooperation on the Afghan border, he might end up giving India the shaft.
It was a statement . And it was horrible .
I think he really does not care .
For those like David Brock and Andrew Sullivan, penis trumps principle.
"I mean: why else..." Which is to say, this is unproven, non-evidence, slander, speculation and we have no proof, no genuine evidence, are calling legitimate interrogation (to prevent terrorist attacks) torture and this is another baseless assertion.
Which means this was printed for political purposes to undermine our security. In the light of what just happened in Mumbai, India, it beyond disgusting.
Everyone, please NOTE CORRECTION:
It was the UK Times that published the article, NOT the UK Telegraph — I erroneously misstated the source and blamed the UK Telegraph.
The link is correct, though.
Sorry.
I'd guess the Indians have done far worse to the people they've captured with their last “event”. No screaming of war crimes from you...
Here's a little morality quiz for you... Lets say you just captured a person that knows where a nuclear weapon was planted in a large city. That it will go off in 15 minutes. What do you do?
There's a little reality for you. Suck it up, be a man. You don't get second chances.
Yep. And as Coulter, I believe, wrote, it probably ain’t abuse or torture if you can pay to have strangers do it to you in America’s trendier cities.
You are correct. I am sure Bush and Company are showing the incoming team all the attacks that were foiled as a result of interrogation.
Bush is probably telling him, "...well, you can shut this down or you can answer for a major attack against a US city."
I understand he called on both sides to exercise restraint. Yet, a few months ago he said he would be willing to send troops into Pakistan to fight terrorism.
He will never side with India !
Of course there was no crime but that matters little to the idiots.
Somewhere in Liberal La-La land a suitcase nuke goes off, killing thousands. We find out we had info, even suspects in custody before the fact but we were concerned about their "rights" so we couldn't stop the attack.
Liberalism, Pacificism, Appeasement become relics of political history......
Like any important election issues, 0 will stay mum on this issue and let it be “handled” by Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and Frank. After all, it “will not be his idea to pursue all those war criminals” and if that particular cause is lost, he can either throw that bunch under the bus because he didn’t initiate the action, or he can claim victory in getting a conviction because he is President.
criminal actions of his predecessor’s / It’s funny how idiots think.
Yes, we’ll see how “criminal” his predecessor was when a massive terrorist attack happens on American soil during Obama’s presidency. All of that blood will be on the hands of the fraud egomaniac who lied his way into office and is not even an American citizen.
What the dems cannot accept is that their beloved Clinton was the first president, in US history, to be impeached, and like little children are harboring animosity towards all Republicans.
” Call me if you need me”....I guess they didn’t.
Any of our clueless politicians that pop up with this pap need to be tarred and feathered.
Better idea. Let's tar and feather them all and run them out of DC on a rail, then dump them in the Potomac.
Pick a benevolent despot and make him the leader.
Obomba did too address this evil: he stated he was agin it.
Typical Liberal lunacy... It is a crime to do everything in your power to protect the lives of Americans....
LOL why bother paying taxes at all. We can’t get financial security and we can’t get personal security out of the government.
When Obama makes all this grand change to Bush policy, what Possibly could he say to Americans after the next terror attack on our soil?
I guess George W. Bush was right... makes him directly Liable for the deaths incurred in fact he should then be charged as accessory to the murder of those innocent Americans on that tragic day. IMPEACH him as soon as he attempts to violate the Constitution with its gurantee that the government exists to protect our Posterity.
“How does he deal with the legacy of criminal actions of his predecessor’s administration when it comes to detention, interrogation, abuse and torture of terror suspects?”
Absolutely none of those so called crimes were done without the full consent of the senate and house intelligence committees. If they go after Bush they have to go after their own as well.
The Roman senate essentially impeached Caesar calling his campaign in Gaul “illegal”. Caeser responded by overthrowing the Republic.
Lefties are playing with fire criminalizing foreign policy.
They have a turd in their pocket. Thus Us!
You’ve got to understand/. Britian, Frqnce, Italy are alll over run with Muslims. Start crictizing Islam and you’ll wind up like Van Goghs nephew did. They’re scared poopless of ‘’offending’’ Muslims.
Yes, their seems to be a connection there between sexual persuasion and in the end (so to speak) the lack of job performance. as if their predispositions (so to speak) made it difficult for them to ascertain the truth in tough times.
No. he doesn't. Anything Obama says right now, on any subject, is basically lipservice. He cannot speak publicly about the things he really cares about. There would be hell to pay. He needs to seize power first.
Unfortunately the scenario you describe is all too frightening in its truth...except they will still find a way to "blame Bush."
I mean: why else Guantanamo Bay and secret black sites if the president believed he was obeying domestic American law?Where were these black sites supposed to be? Chicago?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.