The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet.

So, when the Bush Administration released the original pictures, they were siding with the terrorists? President Obama is obeying a court order. That is what good politicians do; they obey court orders and respect the law.

I believe steps must be taken to bring the members of Obama's legal team before their respective state Bar Associations for immediate disciplinary action and revocation of their licenses. How dare lawyers give legal opinions that are against the wishes of MoveOn, the MSM, the ACLU and members of the Democrat Party.

Obama's done the right thing here, though probably for the wrong reason. Releasing these pictures wouldn't have helped us at all, but that consideration would be secondary compared to what mileage that might be gained from trashing the Bush administration.

And at this point there really isn't any political gain that would be realized from these. Bush is out of office - this would be more seen as coming from the Obama administration than from Bush.

The mileage from trashing Bush is getting less and less. Obama's the HCMFWIC now - and he can't shrug off the responsibility. It'll weigh a lot heavier on him as time goes on, too.

If he does regret it, is it because of national security concerns or politics?

I think more fo the former than the latter. I don't believe President Obama wants this country to be attacked. I do believe, two things may be contributing to him making the country less safe.

1- He seems to hold the belief that if you're kind enough to the terrorist, he'll simply give up his ideology and go be a schoolteacher.

2- He has a far left base that is calling, with complete lack of regard or perspective on national security, for documents and photos to be released in an attempt to somehow use it to prosecute officials of the former administration.

Of course this wont happen because all the release of documents will do is prove a large swathe of Democrats lied all along about their knowledge and involvement, and in an effort to clear themselves from blame, they will conveniently rationalize the interrogation techniques. In doing so, they will also by default, rationalize their use by the Bush Administration.

As Ed Morrissey posted over at Hot Air, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D) did just that:

"I don't want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn't 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks"

Which is of course when and why they were implemented by the Bush Administration and apparently memos so far unreleased describe that the techniques did provide information stopping another attack. The left made another impotent attempt at blaming everything on Bush to remove eyes from Obama's continued glaring failures, but all it will do is dig a grave for the Democrats.

--

Now, releasing the photos will serve no one any purpose other than to get people killed, completely in spite the ouright lie that they'd be used to see if this treatment was of a broader scale and directly sanctioned and called for by former President Bush.

I see it as grasping desperately for straws to try and live out the far left fantasies of imprisoning Bush administration officials.

I do hope if President Obama descides to step out of the corner he has painted himself into, he doesn't release the photos. Because, if he does, he, and all that called for it can be considered murderers, and directly responsible for any deaths that occur after the Muslim world is once again whipped into a frothing rage and decides to go bomb some markets and set up some IEDs.

Obamas a "chickenhawk" Whatever that is?

Obama has no commitment to anything other than Obama. He is his own god and politics is his cult. Anything he does is political.

This needs to end. Two wars, a sinking economy, a looming 9-11 repeat. Start doing your job Barry for the sake of all of us.

Obama evidently learned from his last mistake of releasing the CIA memos. He got burned and the Democrats got burned (Nancy is still twisting in the wind). If Obama had any balls, he'd take the photos, burn them on the White House lawn and then release the ashes to the ACLU.

Where is sgt.shultz? ..err, I mean Colonoscopy Powell when you need him? Sgt. Sgt? Whats your enlighted position on tortue photos? If its torture? please show us all how bad We been to the itty bitty Jihadists? C'mon you brown nosing infidel, show us?

Hope.

Change.

Flip Flopping!

I have no idea why Obama continues supporting this illegal war, killing millions of Iraq's. ;)

Barry did this because his pollsters told him it would not be good. This is how the empty suit governs. By polls. At least I agree with the outcome. Not the motivation. Say what you will, but GW proved he is principled and stood firm on these issues. The left does not understand this because they live in the "gray area" world. ww

"those pictures of American soldiers engaging in torture"
~Lorie Byrd

Bush should have kept the program secret and not allowed photography.

I don't understand how Obama argues that these pictures would endanger the troops, but that the "torture memos" he released did not.

a picture is worth a thousand words? terrorists that don't read English?

why Adrianne? He has nothing to hide.

Bush should have kept the program secret and not allowed photography.

I'm sure you have some proof to the claim that prisoner abuse was a 'program' sanctioned by Bush.

I'll wait while you think of another crass one-liner that contains all accusation, no substance and no fact.

We may be all jumping the gun here assuming that since Obama objects now to their release that they won't be released. The key phrase here is:

Obama, "directed his counsel to OBJECT to the immediate release of the photos on those grounds"

So what. If he really didn't want them released he could issue an executive order so he could be sure they would not be released. But by instead simply "objecting', he is more likely trying to have it both ways, the photos will be released but he can still say he objected to them being released when the firestorm begins. Having it both ways, it's the Obama way.

These pictures were generated by order of the investigators by order of GW. They are not bragging pictures the sicko's did in Abu Grahib. The extreme lefties need to know they are hindering future investigations if the public can cherry pick parts of the evidence to make political points. Again, party first, country second is the dems motto. ww

914e,
The reason you might want to keep this program a secret and not allow photography is so that our enemies can't train to resist the "torture" as Lorie puts it.

Amen to that yet again ww

The Supreme Court can have the photos released after the conflict. The govenment can certainly prove that release of the photos will hurt our troops and citizenry. ww

Well Adrianne I guess GWs war room wasnt to concerned about how the terrorists resist torture or waterboarding or whatever u call it or use. He seemed to be more concerned about nipping it in the bud. In far away places like Afghoonistan, Venezeuala? And Kirkut.

In this respect, I deem Him a glowering success, even though I voted for Ross Perot, Steve Forbes and that stockdale wackjob. I still think George Bush did a good job against the Mujahadeen amonst your tribe. And would vote for him today.

You can all stop squabbling over what is politcally correct.
We're so high minded and superior in this
country we're going to lead the way of
disarming ourselves as a role model for
countries like Iran and NorKor.

But this spring Obama issued a bold call for a world free of nuclear weapons, and part of that vision entails leading by example. That means halting programs that expand the American nuclear stockpile. For the past two budget years the Democratic Congress has refused to fund the Bush-era program. But Obama's budget kills the National Nuclear Security Administration program once and for all.

a browne - "Bush should have kept the program secret and not allowed photography."

It was an easy leap for you to assume bush "allowed" photography wasn't it?

Let me see if I can play a similar game - "a browne" - presumably that's shorthand for your ass is browne. Or just an ass, or a "browneshirt."

Damn, that was fun, and easy.

I didnt notice his browneshirt??

Good one Marc

Maggie -

I saw that - it's an excrutiatingly dumb-ass move that could only be thought reasonable by folks who have ignored geopolitics for decades.

Heck, all you've got to do is go into a high school. Which kids get picked on the most? Not the ones who are willing and able to stand up for themselves - it'll be the ones who won't fight back.

Obama seems to be working hard to make sure we're not seen as a 'bully' - but it's entirely possible to go too far in the other direction, and I'm not sure he's got the wisdom to tell the difference.

Feminizing someone's name--turning Adrian into Adrianne--tells us two things:

1) You have the mentality of a six year old; and
2) You think that feminizing someone is a way of degrading them, revealing your conscious or sub-conscious loathing of the fairer sex.

Aww, did somebody have to sit at home alone on prom night?

I did not buy into the vulgarity of prom night.. Im a loaner. And I didnt even notice I spelled Adrians name wrong.

And no, I dont loathe the fairer sex. I married one.

"And I didnt even notice I spelled Adrians name wrong."

Bullshit.

"Bullshit"

So do cows, but they dont brag about it.

"The fat lady hasnt sung yet"

Like hell.. wasnt she on American idol a few weeks ago?

Lordy there's a hell of a lot of off-tune screeching here, but folks, the Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. As noted above, he's "objecting" but not prohibiting. "Uncomfortable" but not "angry."

You've seen this play run before. He's still flip-flopping like a Perch just flipped onto the river bank. Someone needs to give him a sharp knock on the head to quiet this act down.

Ha ha

Adrianne Adrianne Adrianne? Where fore art thou Adrianne?

Hyper, you and other extreme left trolls are so petty. Tsk,tsk. ww

Under the left's loose definition of what defines torture, degrading someone by accidentally (or even intentionally) calling them Adrianna vs. Adrian is tantamount to pulling fingernails out or having bamboo shoots shoved in your penis*.

*BTW, those are torture. The kind where you want to die, not just want it to stop.

If the photos are authentic, they may be too graphic to show. If it really is American soldiers doing the torturing, the photos would be exposing their identities right on the spot. It's not hard to find "war torture photos" on the internet, but determining when they were taken, identities, and what the circumstances were is always vague.

We will see Obama changing his mind an awful lot as he receives instructions from his advisers.

His term of office could end up titled, "On second thought..."

regarding Bush, 914 says (#22),

"In this respect, I deem Him a glowering success,"

Most people reserve that usage for their gods.

Peter F., the 16th century is that-a-way! Send us a postcard from Spain.

LaMedusa: couldn't they photoshop funny animal faces onto the torturers' faces?

(I say torturers, and not soldiers, because I have a lot of respect for soldiers and wouldn't want them lumped in with Donald Rumsfeld's inquisitors.)

As much as I favor transparent government, I admire that the president was willing to change his mind when he felt that innocent soldiers lives might be at risk if some radical Muslims would be incited by the release of more bad abuse photos. The ability of one to change their own mind or opinion when new facts are presented is an important trait of an open mind.

@Peter F. said: "Under the left's loose definition of what defines torture, degrading someone by accidentally (or even intentionally) calling them Adrianna vs. Adrian is tantamount to pulling fingernails out or having bamboo shoots shoved in your penis*.

*BTW, those are torture. The kind where you want to die, not just want it to stop."

1. Yes, you're so very very smart! You figured it out! Those of us who oppose torture are so vastly and incredibly stupid that we'd make a distinction as crazy as that one! Genius, buddy. Way to go! Don't know how you cracked the code, but boy are you smart!

2. So is that the line between torture and not torture? Where I want to die vs. want it to stop?

If so, how do you reconcile this idea: A person may be able to withstand a physical beating (say being repeatedly punched in the face) as a first act of torture without wanting to die, and simply wanting it to stop. But that same person, if first subjected to 10 days of zero sleep then punched in the face repeatedly may be in a different mental state and therefore want to die rather than simply having the punching stop.

Are you saying that if he only gets punched in the face repeatedly and is capable of standing up to it without wanting to die, it's not torture? But if he's broken down first then punched in the face repeatedly, it is torture?

Wow... who knew THIS would be the debate of the day between American citizens...

Paul, where was Barry's "open mind" when it came to select CIA memo's that also put our troops in jeopardy? Barry changed his mind this time because he realized he erred the last time. At least he learned from his mistake, but you can't put the toothpaste into the tube after it is out. He is foolish and clearly inexperienced. ww

hyper - "(I say torturers, and not soldiers, because I have a lot of respect for soldiers and wouldn't want them lumped in with Donald Rumsfeld's inquisitors.)"

Correct me if my memory fails me but, didn't you have occasion to whine and cry about, your, or someone elses tax dollars being spent on soldiers who are dumber than a box of Cheez-It Crackers or something to that effect.

Was that you, if not, correct me now before I call you a nitwit of the first order.

Peter F., the 16th century is that-a-way! Send us a postcard from Spain.

Then where is the 'feed 'em milk & cookies while watching Sesame Street until they talk' approach to interrogation located?

I imagine it's within the borders of Naive Utopian Universe Where Reality and Common Sense Cease To Exist Land--a UN recognized state, of course.

I'll happily take Spain. Send your address, I'll send a postcard.

JC "foot in the mouth" Hammer said

" President Obama is obeying a court order. That is what good politicians do; they obey court orders and respect the law.
"

Oh wait JC. WHy not follow laws like umm bankruptcy laws where priority creditors get first dibs on the money. Cant have that now can we because then it would piss off Obama's union buddies. BUT WAIT THAT IS THE LAW. AND YOU SAID GOOD POLITICIANS FOLLOW THE LAW. SO therefore Obama is a bad politician based on your statement correct?

Hyper

You have a lot of gall to come here and talk about torture considering the fact that you have advocated doctors killing newborns under certain circumstances.

Adriane Browne.

Trying to follow your leaps of logic is by your own definition TORTURE. Go turn yourself into Obama's brown boots.

You cannot go for 10 days without sleep Jake..You would die.

I dont have to reconcile your hypothetical thesis. I dont torture, but if DarkLord Cheney & counterpart got their rocks off on it? And it saves American lives? Mission accomplished.

From the "you can't make this shit up" file.

The dems, progressives, leftest, leftoids, lefturds, and various and sundry loons all decry waterboarding as torture because it occurred because of lack of Congressional oversight, because Bush was "EVIL," Rumsfeld was the Devil incarnate, etc... ect.

Then the CIA releases documents that outline how some Democrats, to include Nancy Pelosi, were aware of the use of EIT, to include waterboarding, for years.

Now... their talking point (otherwise known as BullShit) is the CIA is out to get them:

"I think there is so much embarrassment in some quarters [of the CIA] that people are going to try to shift some of the responsibility to others -- that's what I think," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was briefed on interrogation techniques five times between 2006 and 2007.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he finds it "interesting" that a document detailing congressional briefings was released just as "some of the groups that have been responsible for these interrogation techniques were taking the most criticism."

Asked whether the CIA was seeking political cover by releasing the documents, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said: "Sure it is."

Anyone see a gang of CIA officials outside on the Senate steps with pitchforks and torches?

They've [conveniently] forgotten it was barack hussein obama's appointee as had of the CIA that released the documents.

Are they now trying to claim CIA Director Leon Panetta is a double agent working against the dems, and only the dems?

"Yes Virgina, there is 'honor' among thieves!"

So their all cryin just like the snobby little trolls on here cause they didnt get to play in the little reindeer waterboarding games.. What a buncha putrid wretches.

Uh-Huh... did you have an epiphany obama?

"I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib," Mr. Obama said. "It's therefore my belief that the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."

Maybe someone related to him after the Abu Ghraib pictures were released depicting prisoners wearing orange coveralls while being abused by a few despicable nutcakes the sane world was aghast, in fact the very next month, at seeing Berg beheaded by jihadi-cut-throats while he was wearing orange coveralls.

Or maybe someone clued obama in to the fact that riots ensued and people died during them after the "flushed Koran" story broke world-wide.

Marc -

"Was it an epiphany, or did someone with a bit of common sense knock him in the side of the head with a brick?"

I think, and I may be giving him too much credit here, that he's starting to realize just how precarious his situation is, how vulnerable he is, and how much he DOESN'T know about what he's trying to do.

He's past the honeymoon phase. Stuff he does now is going to directly reflect on HIM now - not on Bush, and he won't be able to blame anything that might have come around as a result of the photos on Bush.

He MIGHT be able to talk his way out of FUBARing the economy. He MIGHT be able to talk his way out of diplomatic screwups. He MIGHT be able to cover his ass regarding the coming energy problems, and the inability of 'green' sources to supply things in a timely manner. He MIGHT be able to blame an attack on the US on Bush's interrogations and the Abu Ghraib photos (and these, too)...

But it'd be a damn stupid thing to attempt ALL of them.

He came into office with a whole lot of political capital banked up. He's been spending it like crazy, and I think his account's pretty close to bottom. He'll put this away - he wouldn't get enough from it to justify the 'expense'.

It remains to be seen whether he can come up with enough for the rest.

JLawson - "I think, and I may be giving him too much credit here, that he's starting to realize just how precarious his situation is, how vulnerable he is, and how much he DOESN'T know about what he's trying to do."

Is it ok if I stick with my "brick theory?" (Metaphorical of course)

Wildwillie, I certainly hope you're feeling better, fellow. Both you and I have been ill recently.

I personally think some ignorant car-bomber in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan likely can't read or even read English for that matter, so the CIA memos didn't do much. But photos are too easy for some radical Muslim media to reproduce to help to incite social violence. Rightly, the president choose to draw the line here. It was the proper national security call here I think.

Paul, doing much better thank you.

The illiterate Iraq and other arabs will no doubt get the "translation" of the memo's from radical media in the area.

Obama made this decision politically only. ww

No one is making the case for releasing the case for photos so I will. Obama was always for 'a more open more transparent' government, not when it is only convenient or wouldn't embarrass the top brass or make it more difficult for our mission. If pictures or photos of a non-controversial nature endanger our troops in Iraq or the Middle East what are we doing over there? I thought one of the main purposes of the American mission was to spread democratic values and show more accountability than their systems. Maybe we should start censoring or suppressing unfavorable war reports as well.

Life magazine Mylai massacre photos perhaps could have been suppressed for the same reason, by Nixon or Bill Clinton may have tried to censor or suppress the television footage of the enemy dragging through the streets, the bodies of those killed in the Black Hawk "Super 64″ helicopter in Mogadishu, Somalia because it wasn't helping our war effort or mission in Somalia and risking harm to American soldiers in Somalia.

Once you start suppressing footage or asking the courts to suppress accounts or photos of what really happened or is happening, we have take at face value and rely more and more on government spokesman for the Pentagon and White House. Maybe radical hawkish pro-war or anti-war blogs will be next target for those in executive authority, because they too could be construed as putting our soldiers in harm's way.

Marc -

"Is it ok if I stick with my "brick theory?" "

Certainly! In fact, of the two you presented I think the latter much more likely.

Steve Crickmore -

"Obama was always for 'a more open more transparent' government, not when it is only convenient or wouldn't embarrass the top brass or make it more difficult for our mission."

War isn't a game, Steve. You make it more difficult for our military to accomplish the missions assigned by the President, and you're costing the US lives and money. To hell with 'transparency' - I want them to have every possible advantage and I want them to WIN.

Transparency should have limits. When the information being presented can have serious effects on military preparedness, foriegn policy, or the general safety or security of the US, then discretion is advised. You won't find many folks who've been in the military who don't have a real good idea of just WHY communications and operations security are good ideas and what could happen when 'transparency' divulges details that the enemy doesn't need to know. (Think we should divulge the specs of the IED jammers we use? I don't - and I'd be surprised if you did.)

Besides - at this point Obama doesn't have to keep ANY of his promises - and more the fool you for thinking he meant to keep 'em in the first place. He rooked you, Steve - good and proper.

He did the right thing here. I don't care how he arrived at the decision. President Obama should receive credit for it. I don't agree with this man about anything except for today. So rather than pile on, support him because the Left is going nuts right now.

hooson - "I personally think some ignorant car-bomber in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan likely can't read or even read English for that matter, so the CIA memos didn't do much."

Yeah, 'cause we know ignorant suicide bombers never graduated from kindergarten.

Well, except for goodly portion of those that flew planes into the WTC. Some of them were damn highly educated.

Or perhaps hooson you think 7 of the 19 9/11 hijackers that attended flight school were dumb as a box of Wheaties.

If so what does that say about airline pilots, are they as "dumb" as those 7?

Psst, hooson, 18 percent of Palestinian suicide bombers went beyond high school
education, compared with only 8 percent in the Palestinian population as a whole.

Like Bullwinkle J. Moose who needs a new hat, you need a new Meme.

Yours is inoperative.

Dee -

It's almost funny watching the left on this - but it does illustrate how removed from reality some of them are. (Paul Hooson realizes that Obama's done the right thing here... even if he doesn't realize that English isn't ONLY spoken in the US, and that there are plenty of people who know both Arabic and English who would have no problems translating it, AND who would see an advantage for THEIR side to do so.)

They WANT what they want, when they want it - and they wanted those pictures!

Kind of makes you wonder just what for, doesn't it? A shared thrill akin to watching a slasher movie in a crowded theater? Maybe some vicarious fantasies about doing the same thing to folks they hate so passionately on the right? Maybe they're just voyeuristic S&M junkies, who were looking for new material...

Anyway, I believe President Obama did the right thing also. Perhaps for the wrong reason - but I'll take what I can get.

Crickmore said

"Obama was always for 'a more open more transparent' government, not when it is only convenient or wouldn't embarrass the top brass or make it more difficult for our mission:

BULL. Only when it is convenient to Obama. That is about it.

Obama was always for 'a more open more transparent' government, not when it is only convenient or wouldn't embarrass the top brass or make it more difficult for our mission

You mean, like when he immediately released all the photos taken when he had Air Force One buzz downtown Manhattan as well as making the passenger list available to the press?

Oh, wait...

You mean, like when... obama promised to post all bills to be signed on the internet for 5 days before signing them?

Oh, wait again.

"A senior administration official told FOX News that Obama met with his legal team last week and told them that he did not feel comfortable with the release of the photos because he believes they would endanger U.S. troops, and that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court."

What's really alarming is that someone had to tell him this.

No. He heard the outcry against releasing the memos ...

Wait, strike that...

He heard the outcry against releasing, not just the memos, but also only those he thought would help him politically.

The more I see, the more I'm inclined to believe that Obama is, at some level, sociopathic. He doesn't understand human nature or human emotion. Only that they are things he has learned he can manipulate for personal or political gain.

He hasn't quite mastered it yet.

Oh, and I missed this one:

"I want to emphasize that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib,"

So they're not as bad as Abu Graib? Then what are they? Pictures of these guys being handed their Qurans without gloves on?

With the non-release of the photos commenters and hosts on wizbang "The entire Abu Ghraib kerfuffle was nothing more than a garden-variety case of stupid soldiers doing stupid things,'" and Bush Administration officials like Rumsfeld can return to saying that prisoner abuse was just the result of a 'few bad apples' at Abu Ghraib, when there is no proof of the contrary, but according to the ACLU.

These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," said Amrit Singh, staff attorney with the ACLU. "Their disclosure is critical for helping the public understand the scope and scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse."

The problem I see it is we had this full and complete investigation promised by Bush, "We will find the truth, we will fully investigate, the world will see the investigation, and justice will be served." and that seven officials soldiers Abu Ghraib were prosecuted and that was the end of it. We were told that that was isolated, aberrational and then when it is found cropping up over the place (presumably), we say for questions of national security, (also conveniently for impunity for top officials since it is only misfit, lower, stupid soldiers who engaged in this and there is no proof since we can't release the photos or accounts or memos and so on because if it corroborates what everyone suspects -practices were permitted and encouraged by higher officials who should have known better, then it would only make the situation worse...

Steve, don't hate so much. It isn't healthy. ww

Steve -

That was rather incoherent towards the end - you might want to retry that, it seemed your train of thought derailed.

But bluntly - in war, we are under exactly NO obligation of any kind to parade every mistake and mis-judgement and misdeed we've ever done in the media. I think someone took Obama aside and pointed out to him that, as nice as it may sound to provide his far-left supporters with more material to fulfil their fantasies of the US being teh worst nation EVARRR, the damage to the operational abilities and the US image would be far more extensive and long lasting than he thought, and the repetitious, continual apologizing for simply EXISTING doesn't do the reputation or status of the US one bit of good.

Obama released these pictures for one reason and one reason alone: When they are released (which they will be by Soros or some other friend of Obama), Obama will claim he did everything to stop their release in May of 2009. He'll be sitting in his little office with a grin while Bush is blamed for the slaughter of our soldiers that will take place due to the propoganda the murdering thugs will use. However, some of us will know where the blame should/will lie.

I applaud the president on this move.

What good would release of the photos do to anybody? The troops would be punished and our reputation would take a serious hit. These photos would be degrading to the people of the Middle East where most of these prisoners hailed from. It would have been a lose-lose situation.

This is one of the first moves where I support the president 100%.

Ryan

However, some of us will know where the blame should/will lie.

Right, Carol: the blame lies with those who authorized and conducted barbaric interrogation techniques that we refer to as "torture". And by the way, contrary to your assertion, they have not yet been released, so take a Valium.

Do you have any conception of right vs. wrong beyond protecting Americans' lives? Is that the be-all and end-all of goodness in your bizarre opinion? I'm not saying that the photos should be released, but if they were to be released, the responsibility for whatever happens as a result lies with whoever authorized and carried out torture.

If that's difficult for you to understand, I'll put it to you this way. Let's say Bill gets photographed by a private investigator cheating on his wife. These photos are used to tear apart his family in court. Bill then blames the photographer for ruining his life. His kids grow up to be delinquents, and Bill blames the judge and the photographer for having ended his relationship and robbing them of a two-parent household.

Do you see why Bill is an asshole and a moron?

Your name is Bill?
I always thought it would be Jean-Paul, Jean-Pierre or something like that. Or maybe Cecil.

Hey, hyperbolist, I'll take one Valium if you'll take ten or twenty. We didn't torture anyone, jerk!

Hey, hyperbolist, Since I'm not perfect, I admit my mistakes and now see that I made a typo on my previous post. Obama hasn't released the pictures ... yet!

Didn't torture anyone? What rock have you been living under? If nobody was tortured, then why are you so bent out of shape about who sees photographs of people being tortured?

SCSI: I was born in Montréal, but to a Dutch father and an Irish mother. There's nary a hyphenated first name in the entire clan. No Cecils either... yet.

No, the photos haven't been released ... yet.

If he thinks this will damage our image (even more than the apology tour and the release of the memos) and if he thinks it would further endanger the troops, then he could easily do more than just instruct the Justice Department to argue against it. He has the power to issue an executive order. But he won't do it. This is good cover for him and gives more hope to those who demand the release. He doesn't want to lose their support. If the Supreme Court decides to side with the [is the 2nd Court?] and okays the release, his supporters will be ecstatic and Obama will tell the rest he did everything thing he could to stop it.

Hyper, by your own analogy, the photo's should only be shown to the "victim" and his family.

No Hyper, you are wrong. You think what our operatives did is torture and I and others don't. Just because you and others say it is so does't make it so.

I do also believe my government should do everything in it's power to keep me, my family and my fellow citizens safe. That simple. I don't give a flip what France or Canada thinks of us. We are the ones under attack. ww

You truly are a joke, hyperbolist. It's only torture because Obama and his friends have told the world it was torture to win an election. If it is truly torture, Obama should charge the entire Bush administration criminally, haul them into court, try them, convict them and send them off to prison.

It is only because the majority of American people don't believe it was torture and know Bush did what he "thought was right" at the time after 3,000+ innocents were slaughtered in a matter of two hours that Obama has flip-flopped. I stick with my belief that the pictures will come out and Obama won't give a damn about the soldiers and innocents who will be killed. He is an arrogant, weak politician who only cares about power.

When individuals who only care about power and winning lie, steal, cheat to get what they want, innocent peole get hurt along the way. Maybe some day people like you will get over your hatred of Bush and move forward. Until then our soldiers who are serving bravely will have to fight under even more difficult circumstances because of propoganda. You call it torture. I don't.

If you two clods think that waterboarding has only been defined as torture since the '08 election; and if you think that simply saying "We agree to disagree as to whether that practice is in fact torture" has any bearing as to the legality and morality of the practice; then you're thicker than Scrapiron ever was, may he rest in peace.

The practice has been used to torture prisoners for a very long time. It is torture because it involves convincing someone that they are going to drown; you don't think it is because you think your country is better than countries that torture, and presumably you also think that psychological distress is somehow less terrible than physical; and so we must conclude that your brains must be awfully sore from all of the conceptual origami you put them through.

Rather than making yourselves look stupid and evil, why don't you just say that you support torture, so that you only look evil but not stupid? Seriously, you've waltzed into Douglas Feith territory here.

I guess you missed the part where I said I don't believe waterboarding is torture. That is my belief. Please let me have my beliefs as I let you have yours.

hyper - "I'm not saying that the photos should be released, but if they were to be released, the responsibility for whatever happens as a result lies with whoever authorized and carried out torture."

So, you assume the jihadist-cut-throats would actually make that distinction?

You think the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda fi Bilad al-Sham, Fatah al-Islam, Abu Sayaaf, Jemaah Islamiah, Kumpulan Militan/Mujahideen, Indonesian Islamic Liberation Front and the dozens of other "franchises" of Al-Qaeda would all collectively start yelling:

It was "ChimpyMcBushHaliburtonDarthChaneyRummyRumsfled" all along...we KNEW it! OH THANK YOU barack hussein obama."

P.S."barack hussein obama, were having a group hug, all of us splinter groups, now we know America is no longer the Great Satin, you're 'cordially' invited to attend. RSVP"

Yeah... right!

Hyper you're about as disconnected from reality as Pelosi who now claims (must be the 4-5 version of her "reality") she was duped, duped I tell-ya by the Bush admin.

hyper - STRAWMAN ALERT - "if you think that simply saying "We agree to disagree as to whether that practice is in fact torture" has any bearing as to the legality and morality of the practice; then you're thicker than Scrapiron ever was, may he rest in peace."

"We agree to disagree" is just that, a difference of opinion, stretching it into anything related to "legality and morality" is just stuffing a bunch of straw into a dummy.

Your side can trot out experts from the CIA, the Bush admin, whomever and claim it was torture.

Those that believe W/Bding isn't torture can do the same, That does nothing but highlight the fact there are varying OPINIONS.

Shoot fire, I was looking forward to seeing a death-to-America worshipping jihadi screaming like a little girl when they put a caterpillar in his burka. A few swirlies with his head in a toilet thrown in would just give me a hoot. In for a penny, in for a pound Mr. Soetoro. Let the truth out; let VP Emeritus Cheney's files be released as requested, along with your birth certificate, live birth record, college records, college thesis, articles written while on the Law Review, client list as a lawyer, ad nauseum. Since I've been able to see through you from the beginning, your transparency is not required for my eyes. But America wants to know. We the people demand it, dude.

When will the Democrats condemn America's enemies for mutilations and murders so atrocious they defy the mind's capacity to grasp the inhumanity? Disgusting is this President and Congress. Impeach all the worthless scum.

Believing something doesn't make it true, Carol. Some people believe that they are better drivers while intoxicated, but the law is rightly deaf to this belief. I don't think there is a democratic country in the world that accepts waterboarding as a legitimate, legal interrogation technique. Dick Cheney and John Yoo saying that something is legal does not make it so.

And I apologize for calling you stupid. I think that your view on waterboarding is categorically mistaken, but that doesn't make you an idiot. Uncalled for.

marc, I wouldn't expect terrorists to make that distinction. That people might die because of these photographs is not necessarily a reason not to release them; and releasing them would not be the cause of whatever retribution the nutcases might seek, but the torturous actions themselves.

Republican: "But if they never see the photos then nobody would die! Why do you want people to die?!"

Sane person: "Don't torture. Do. Not. Torture. Do not vote for people who condone it. Don't want servicemembers to die at the hands of murderously indignant jihadis? Then don't. Vote. For. These. Fuckers."

By the way: twolaneflash, President Obama and the Democratic congress have authorized drones to fire missiles into the homes of those who would commit barbaric atrocities against innocent people. Nobody needs to go on television to reassure you that they feel a sufficient amount of hatred for evil people, because to sane people that sort of thing goes without saying.

As for the glee you would feel watching a barbarian being treated barbarically, it shows everyone else what kind of uncivilized, depraved cretin you are. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but you would dunk your enemies' heads in toilets: nice one! Did somebody get bullied much when they were a child?

Jesus said when some hurts you or offends you to turn the other cheek. Jesus did not say when somebody wants to kill you, let them. Hyper, put your priest outfit away. ww

hyper - "and releasing them would not be the cause of whatever retribution the nutcases might seek, but the torturous actions themselves."

History has proven that to be a misguided thought process.

Jihadist-cut-throats specifically dressed berg in orange coveralls when beheading him a month after the abu ghraib photos were released showing prisoners in the same garb. The likelihood of it being a "coincidence" is fairly small considering it hadn't been done before. Danny Pearl and a few others beheaded previously weren't in orange coveralls were they?

I ask you, what happened when the "flushed Koran" story broke? Riots in several Islamic countries correct?

Do you honestly think thousands of people world-wide suddenly decided collectively to take to the streets in protest.

In some cases mass riots broke out where cars were burned, businesses looted and burned and people were killed.

All of that had nothing to do with the Koran story? It was all just a happy coincidence in happy-land.

Hyper, it amazes me that you do not respect anothers belief. Conservatives think you are wrong and weak on this subject. Why can't you get that?

I think what is barbaric is getting a club, going out to the tundra, sneaking up on a baby seal and clubbing it to death. You are for that,no? ww

P.S. hyper - "Don't want servicemembers to die at the hands of murderously indignant jihadis? Then don't. Vote. For. These. Fuckers.""

Tell that to the 60 plus million that voted for barack hussein obama. It's his war in Afghanistan now and one where he has committed to send in more troops. (does that make him a "chickenhawk" as bush was?)

And really, you shouldn't be calling obama or his sycophants "Fuckers."

Hyperbolist, shooting rockets into villages in Afghanistan/Pakistan is torture ... torture of those innocents who are killed during a war. I would never suggest that Obama should be charged with war crimes.

What is most disturbing is that these so-called torture incidents happened YEARS ago. They aren't going on right now. It is unconscionable that Obama and his friends have used those incidents for political gain and to win elections. Their hatred of Bush is disgusting. It happened in the past. It is not happening now. Debating whether it's torture or not is a legitimate debate, but using accusations of torture as a tool to gain politically is downright criminal as blood will be shed in the name of revenge.

What Obama has done is give the murdering thugs ammunition to recruit killers. Releasing the memos, saying he's going to release hundreds more, saying he's not going to release them and accusing the Bush administration of war crimes day in and day out is just plain wrong. I believe the photos will be leaked by some idiot and it will only provide more propoganda. That is what I have a problem with.

Labeling our military and those who had to make difficult decisions after 3,000+ innocents were slaughtered on 9/11 "torturers" is not acceptable to me. Obama and his friends will slowly weaken and destroy our national security ... all because of "power". That is what I'm observing in Washington.

High-Per-Bowl-Ist, you are too tiresome. Go smoke some more.

Interesting question:

The left, leftists, dems, democraps, lefturds, progressives, etc, spent about 18 months or more defending each and every flip-flop sen. kerry performed when he "reported for duty."

The same group spent 8 years decrying every Bush flip-flop, both real and imagined.

So where are they now? obama has flip-flopped on lobbyists in his admin, earmarks, release of "abuse" videos etc...etc.

How has obama gained immunity on the issue? (As if I didn't know)

"The practice has been used to torture prisoners for a very long time. It is torture because it involves convincing someone that they are going to drown;"

Trying to sneak in a little equivalence there, hyper? "[F]or a very long time..." as if this is akin to the method used in the middle ages like the water cure? Or like what the Japanese did during WWII?

Been there, argued that. Not goin' there again.

Here's another question for hyper-bullshit-artist:

Geneva Conventions specifically forbid, prisoners or pictures of prisoners be used for propaganda purposes.

In fact the Conventions go even further than that, it forbids those that hold prisoners - ya know like obama now - from using the pictures of gitmo detainees regardless of the intent for their release.

Are you saying if released they would never be used in such a way?

Simple display of the images would lead to nothing more than fingers pointed at the bush admin?

Is it possible you only believe cartoons, and not gitmo/abu grahib images, capable of sparking unrest n the Muslim world?

If so you've obviously failed the history chapter on jihadist-cut-throat 101.

Are you then in favor of obama releasing the images and being in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

DAMN, hyper-bullshit-artist, the hits just keep coming.

The Obama administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on U.S. soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Hyper

"Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but you would dunk your enemies' heads in toilets: nice one! "

Why are you trying to quote Jesus when you state that physicans should be able to kill newborns under certain circumstances but yet you seem to be against dunking people's heads in toilets. Liberal logic. You have to laugh at it.

Hyper

"Sane person: "Don't torture. Do. Not. Torture. Do not vote for people who condone it. Don't want servicemembers to die at the hands of murderously indignant jihadis? Then don't. Vote. For. These. Fuckers."
"
Last time I checked the waterboarding (not torture) was done after 911. So umm your logic goes out the window yet again. Not suprising

BTW you mentioned servicemembers. What about reporters who are generally against waterboarding (and torture as well).

hooson - "I personally think some ignorant car-bomber in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan likely can't read or even read English for that matter, so the CIA memos didn't do much."

Funny since they have found training manuals that tell terrorists how to act if captured. Things such as claiming their Koran was despoiled, etc.

Hyper
"Believing something doesn't make it true, Carol. Some people believe that they are better drivers while intoxicated, but the law is rightly deaf to this belief. I don't think there is a democratic country in the world that accepts waterboarding as a legitimate, legal interrogation technique. Dick Cheney and John Yoo saying that something is legal does not make it so.

"

You should try preaching that to JMC. He has a problem comprehending that concept.

You should also practise it when you state that waterboarding as practised at GITMO was torture.

"Believing something doesn't make it true,"

Just keep repeating that hyper and soon you may be able to join the rest of the adult world.

Hyper

"If you two clods think that waterboarding ,,,, peace.

The practice has been used to torture prisoners for a very long time."

The water boarding that took place at GITMO is nothing like the water boarding that took place during WW2, or other times in history. You and others like you continue to deliberately overlook that fact

"It is torture because it involves convincing someone that they are going to drown"

Or die. Just like I said in the other thread. Some people on rollercoasters feel they are going to die, others going through haunted houses have had heart attacks. Are those 2 acts torture? By your definition it is.

How about soldiers going through a firefight and feel they are going to die? By your definition that is torture as well. So Obama would be guilty of torture as he has soldiers going through firefights today. That is using your reasoning and logic.

" you don't think it is because you think your country is better than countries that torture, and presumably you also think that psychological distress is somehow less terrible than physical; and so we must conclude that your brains must be awfully sore from all of the conceptual origami you put them through.'"

Yes I do feel that America is better than other countries. For the way we do treat prisoners humanely. I don't see you mentioning the prisoners at GITMO having to get put on a diet because they had gained about 20 pounds apiece. In Vietnam Americans were beaten solely for trying to say the pledge of allegiance and at GITMO the prisoners get Korans for their prayers. In cases, severe methods have to be used to obtain information to try to save lives. This was done as a last resort not as a first resort, not as fun and definitely without a lot of forethought and discussion beforehand.

You can call it torture all you want but you wouldn't know torture if it bit you in the ass.
You feel that it is not okay to make prisoners feel like they are drowning yet you advocate doctors killing newborns under certain circumstances. You have your head so far up your ass you cant even see just how big of a joke you are.

"This was done as a last resort not as a first resort, not as fun and definitely without a lot of forethought and discussion beforehand.
"

SHould read

This was done as a last resort not as a first resort, not as fun and definitely not without a lot of forethought and discussion beforehand.

Hey, hyperbolist, if you're out there, check out Drudge Report and you'll see the first of MANY photos that will be leaked about the alleged torture. I rest my case.

Why does closeted homosexual Matt Drudge hate America, Carol?

retired military, your idiocy knows no bounds. Soldiers are required to risk their lives, and in many cases this would involve some seriously harrowing experiences. On the other hand, we are required to pay prisoners a certain amount of respect, even if we catch them in the act of--say--killing women and children. (That makes us better than them.) So, for you to compare what a soldier goes through in the line of duty, to torturing a hostage, is like saying that the following two examples are equivalent:

1) Your child signs up for tackle football, and suffers a shoulder injury; and
2) Your child is bashed repeatedly against a wall by a bully and has his/her shoulder dislocated.

If you aren't so stupid as to understand the difference between the above two cases, then you also aren't so stupid as to understand the difference between 1) waterboarding a prisoner (or bashing his/her head against a wall; or electrocuting him/her; or depriving him/her of sleep for a week); and 2) preparing a soldier for the same sort of thing in the event that he/she is captured.

You're either stupid or evil. Tell yourself that next time you're saluting the flag that represents all that you piss on with your imbecilic comments.

ooohh Hyper got pissed off.

Tell me hyper. You are so against waterboarding prisoners yet you are for doctors letting newborns die under certain circumstances and letting people cut off their own perfectly good limbs if they so desire.

How do you explain your logic?

"1) Your child signs up for tackle football, and suffers a shoulder injury; and
2) Your child is bashed repeatedly against a wall by a bully and has his/her shoulder dislocated."

I would consider number 2 abuse. You would considier it torture. The two are not the same.

"If you aren't so stupid as to understand the difference between the above two cases, then you also aren't so stupid as to understand the difference between 1) waterboarding a prisoner (or bashing his/her head against a wall; or electrocuting him/her; or depriving him/her of sleep for a week); and 2) preparing a soldier for the same sort of thing in the event that he/she is captured"

You mentioned fear of death. What about the soldiers who have been extended past their ETS date and been kept on stop loss. What about soldiers who have also stated they dont want to go to Iraq. You are doing something against their will so in your definition exposing them to a situation where their life is in danger is torture.

I dont think anyone in the US has electrocuted prisoners at GITMO got a link or are you just exaggerating?

No prisoners were kept without sleep for a week either.

Please give a link detailing the "bashing his head into a wall"

"On the other hand, we are required to pay prisoners a certain amount of respect, even if we catch them in the act of--say--killing women and children. "

And we did. And only 3 prisoners were waterboarded only after all other interrogation methods failed. Also all 3 prisoners are alive and apparantly unharmed as a result.

", for you to compare what a soldier goes through in the line of duty, to torturing a hostage"

But but one of the great arguments of the left is WW2 and vietnam.

Hyper, you are an idiot. And your knee jerk answers to justify a position show you to be a willful idiot just to try to justify your position.

"And your knee jerk answers to justify a position show you to be a willful idiot just to try to justify your position"

I realize that is kinda of repititive but saying Hyper and willful idiot is as well.

I fell off my chair laughing, Hyperbolist ... Drudge hates America?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!

Thanks for making me laugh!!!!

Here is Chuck Schumer. I wonder if hyper and other liberals will denounce him as well.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/15/theres-a-few-ants-in-the
-ladys-pants/
Here's Chuck Schumer, the highly partisan senator from New York, talking
about "torture" at a Senate hearing: "I'd like to interject a note of
balance here ... I think there are probably very few people in this room
or in America who would say that torture should never be used,
particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical:
If we knew there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we
believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a
chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is that most
Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say: 'Do what you have to
do.' "

But that was in 2004, before common sense in the party of FDR, Harry
Truman and John F. Kennedy suffered grievous wounds.

hyper - "Soldiers are required to risk their lives, and in many cases this would involve some seriously harrowing experiences"

True as far as that goes, but if you're tryin to imply that includes that that get waterboarded during SERE and SEAL training you're ignorance it blowing in the wind.

People in those programs, first volunteer for service and secondly volunteer for SERE and Seal training knowing full well what it entails.

Hyper, you and many others scream and grind their teeth about "moral high ground," and other such tripe as if is the be all and end all of a countries foreign and domestic policies.

NEWSFLASN Asshole, YOU as a representative of YOUR country has NO moral authority over the U.S.

1. Canada had to set up the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate and punish those in gov that forced native communities to send their children away from home to boarding schools run by religious establishments, whilt in those schools abuse ran rampant.

2. Japanese Canadians were interned during World War II, their property confiscated. (Gee, asshole haven't you condemned Malkin and her book because of that very thing?)

3. In WW 1 Ukrainian Canadian internment was part of the confinement of "enemy aliens" (5,000) in Canada during and for two years after the end of the First World War, lasting from 1914 to 1920.

4. Some Canadian provinces, including Ontario and Alberta, continue to operate separate and publicly funded schools that discriminate by religion. In Canada these are usually Roman Catholic schools.

5. The asswipes in Québec dreamed up Bill 101. a pack of laws passed in order to propagate the French language and severely restricted the use of English. In 1993, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled that Quebec's sign laws broke an international covenant on civil and political rights.

Hyper... you and your gov have ZERO moral standing over the U.S.

Clean-up, and or apologize for you own shithole.