Is Hayden really happy with this? Sometimes you can’t tell who is a Bushbot, and who really cares about the job they do(at least not 2 days after Obama became President). When is Panetta going to get confirmed anyway?

OBEY

Is Hayden really happy with this?

Maybe. Maybe he knows something you don’t….
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..e-got.html
http://valtinsblog.blogspot.co…..plans.html

If that’s the case, why wouldn’t he be happy ?
You’ve been given the case for why saying the US has ended torture is all good for everyone. If you’re the CIA and you could have that while doing what you were beforehand, what you want to, what’s to be unhappy about ?

Given that there’s no shortage of reporting about how significant these changes are away from the Bush admin, maybe we could expect a single article to examine how not different they are.

Without that, I’d question how different you think you look from RedState every time Bush declared the US doesn’t torture. Sure, they’re a different kind of arsehole, but the unquestioning assumption that what their POTUS was doing was exactly what he should be was the significant factor.

Obama’s the first black president. Nobody has yet been insane enough to suggest he’s the first truthful one. Change has come, but not that much.

You guys think Hayden sounds happy? All he’s saying is that he was following orders then and he’s following orders now. The fact that he’s proud of what happened when he was following the old orders suggests he doesn’t like the new ones.

Given that there’s no shortage of reporting about how significant these changes are away from the Bush admin, maybe we could expect a single article to examine how not different they are.

Done and done.

It reads like a classic CYA memo to me.

Ve vere only followink orders vhen ve were doing shtuff. Yah?

Given that there’s no shortage of reporting about how significant these changes are away from the Bush admin, maybe we could expect a single article to examine how not different they are.

Stalin said they didn’t torture.

Mao said they didn’t torture.

Amin said he wasn’t even hungry.

We never hurt a soul at An Loc.

The difference needs to be that it’s AGAINST THE LAW and in VIOLATION OF POLICY to commit torture/war crimes. Anybody who thinks it doesn’t/won’t happen is naive or lying, but what we’re discussing here is the official policy of the US Government.

Under bush/cheney we acknowledged that these actions were not only allowed, not only authorized, but officially ordered. That is what cannot be allowed to stand.

Huh. Woulda thought that was obvious…

mikey

And you know this by mental telepathy, or what?

Yeah, spotted that, good stuff.

^This being the height of appreciation I show towards journalists who write what I think they ought to. I really am a bastard.

Stalin said they didn’t torture. Mao said they didn’t torture. Amin said he wasn’t even hungry. We never hurt a soul at An Loc.

The difference needs to be that it’s AGAINST THE LAW and in VIOLATION OF POLICY to commit torture/war crimes. Anybody who thinks it doesn’t/won’t happen is naive or lying, but what we’re discussing here is the official policy of the US Government.

Yeah, so was I. I was discussing the fact that there is no *new* law against torture, rendition and secret detention. These were all illegal to start with and adherence to those laws was official policy. Nothing in that regard has changed for quite a while.

That leaves you with the loopholes that allow this machinery to operate. While you can’t see what Obama’s admin will do in the future, the machinery he leaves in place is a good place to start looking. If it only has one use, and you know what that is, you know why it is there.

Under bush/cheney we acknowledged that these actions were not only allowed, not only authorized, but officially ordered. That is what cannot be allowed to stand. Huh. Woulda thought that was obvious…

Well it might have been if that was relevant or useful.
The only reason Bush acknowledged these policies existed is he got caught. Nobody cops to torture unless they have to, I would have thought that was obvious. Clinton didn’t cop to this stuff and got away with it. His defense of his violations of these laws was so childish and implausible it was only one step away from saying “no comment”.

When you say “we acknowledged” these things, you’re not talking about Bush/Cheney. They consistently denied the US tortures people. So you are talking about you and people like you did this. That would count for something if you didn’t do this selectively.

Hence, if you can do this under Obama too then you elevate yourself above the discourse that I can find from football fans. So you now get the point why I suggest examining what Obama’s similarities to Bush are.

When you say “we acknowledged” these things, you’re not talking about Bush/Cheney. They consistently denied the US tortures people.

Wrong. And silly. Thanks for playing, here’s a lovely gift.

Actually, I AM talking specifically about President GW Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney. Along with many ranking members of their administration. Whatever it was that made you think otherwise, let me be very clear. Both have admitted as much in recorded interviews. To deny it is to be willing to overlook the responsibility for these crimes, which makes one wonder just exactly what your agenda might actually be.

You could use the old “criminalizing political differences” trope. You could use the older “NATIONAL SECURITY, BITCHEZ” trope. You could fall back on 9/11!!!!! But to say bush/cheney didn’t make torture and indefinite detention and rendition and warrantless surveillance US Government policy leaves you pretty far outside the mainstream of current events.

But whatevs. I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Will human rights violations happen under Obama? Sure. Will they be prosecuted? Maybe some, not all by any means. This merely brings us back to business as usual. We did crap in the Fishhook that wakes me up at night shaking. Nobody said boo.

But the important thing, the thing we, perversely, can cling to, is it wasn’t US policy. It was field expedient decision making, and we can always know that as a people, as a society, we’re better than that.

Well, most of us….

mikey

Wrong. And silly. Thanks for playing, here’s a lovely gift.

That’d look more impressive if you didn’t wholly avoid addressing everything I wrote. Wanna try that instead ?
There’s really no option to pretend to claim victory in a debate you’re not even participating in, presumably due to your inability.

Actually, I AM talking specifically about President GW Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney.

Yes, but you’re writing things that don’t include any supporting evidence, reference, or even a simple explanation for what you are claiming. Wanna try that kind of writing about them instead ?

Along with many ranking members of their administration. Whatever it was that made you think otherwise, let me be very clear. Both have admitted as much in recorded interviews. To deny it is to be willing to overlook the responsibility for these crimes,

No, you’re just talking shit. Stating the fact that Bush/Cheney didn’t admit violating laws has no bearing on the fact that they did. This would be obvious to anyone who is aware that your legal system operates on a presumption of innocence and things such as a “legal defense” exist.

In every criminal case in history, has responsibility for crimes been absolved the second the defendant pleads not guilty ?
Is issuing a press release denial about wrongdoing the solution to all questions of guilt ? If not, you appear to be talking shit.

What planet are you from if you believe acknowledging that these people have denied what they have, absolves them of something ? Here on earth, it’s customary not to take politicians at their word, given that they are professional liars. To do otherwise is to be a gullible idiot.

…which makes one wonder just exactly what your agenda might actually be.

I’m trying to take over the world, one evasive, boring simpleton at a time.

You could use the old “criminalizing political differences” trope. You could use the older “NATIONAL SECURITY, BITCHEZ” trope. You could fall back on 9/11!!!!!

And you could simply read what I have written instead of constructing lame strawman arguments instead.

But to say bush/cheney didn’t make torture and indefinite detention and rendition and warrantless surveillance US Government policy leaves you pretty far outside the mainstream of current events.

Really. I guess we’ll skip the part where you suggest how.
You know, I can’t recall the “current events” news story that mentioned how any of these things were established. If we define “current events” as “started under Bush”, then I don’t think you can either.

But whatevs. I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

Oh FFS, then feel free to STFU until you figure it out.

But the important thing, the thing we, perversely, can cling to, is it wasn’t US policy. It was field expedient decision making, and we can always know that as a people, as a society, we’re better than that.

So in summary, the distinction you’re drawing is that selective semantics make all the difference. Wow. Good one.

Yeah, the things you were already doing under direct approval of the president only became “official policy” when Bush took office. Now that there’s a new president you approve of that has taken office, they’ll go back to being “unofficial field expedient decisions”.

I wonder what new name we’ve already concocted for the Pak airstrikes. “Presidentially approved extra-judicial killings in violation of the UN charter, Geneva conventions and numerous international treaties” would appear to be out.

You are a walking waste of time.