Here’s a fun thought: imagine that you run a quasi-legal dictatorship, say, Burma or Uzbekistan. Naturally you’d love to jail and torture* those pesky dissidents, foreign spies, people who might be foreign spies, nose whistlers and hotel clerks who slighted your cousin. Hang ’em from the ceiling for a few days and they’ll confess to making the weather cloudy.
How awesome is it if America says that first world countries do that too? If you are one of those regimes it’s like a whole new day.
(*) Obama says that he won’t let Americans torture. That’s nice. Bush said that too. Obama could, of course, change his mind without any apparent consequences. Maybe he really needs to torture just this one guy. Maybe the next President will decide that yeah, he kind of would like to torture people. Better lawyers than me can explain what will compel Jeb or Bobby Jindal to respect a law that has no criminal consequences.
***Update***
soonergrunt
Add in people who talk or text during the movie and I’m there!
joe from Lowell
Bush’s White House issued orders to have people tortured.
Obama’s White House issued Executive Orders forbidding the use of any interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, or federal torture laws, and explicitly forbade exactly those torture practices Bush engaged in.
So, yeah, six of one…
Are you KIDDING me with this crap?
JGabriel
Tim F. at Top:
There’s a part of me that wants to say, “Only the Republicans … ” because, after the last 30 years, really, they deserve the abuse, but the truth is I can’t imagine wanting to torture anyone. It’s just a sick, twisted thing to do.
And if that’s what separates me from Republicans, I guess I can live with it.
Also? Kind of agreeing with Joe from Lowell on the whole “Six of one…” point above.
.
Wilson Heath
A law with no consequences is not a law but a platitude.
Linkmeister
I’m inclined to agree with Tim’s sentiments in the post, but I also want to commend him for the wordplay in the title.
“Darkness at Noon” is a horrifying book.
asiangrrlMN
I think the point is that we need it explicitly in…oh, fuck. We have it specifically in the laws. Never mind. Keep walking, folks. Nothing to see here.
Martin
I agree. Bush I didn’t torture. Reagan didn’t. Ford. Ike. I’m not even willing to assume that the next Republican is going to torture yet we’re going to hang that around Obama’s neck at this point?
Are we dismissing every word that Obama said and only treating Pat Buchanan as a credible voice out there?
Bob In Pacifica
When such events as this happen, and logic fails you, you need to go to a conspiracy theory. Here’s mine.
Change that most people refuse to believe happened. But it explains why Obama is not doing what he is not doing.
peaches
John is holier than thow now, but look at the pure crap he spewed wrt John Walker Lindh to understand where this post comes from.
Pretty pictures of pets and flirting with commenters (a la Althouse) doesn’t quite make it.
Cole is still a Republican at heart — or maybe a libertarian.
It’s funny how someone cqn change so quickly :p
peaches
“Obama says that he won’t let Americans torture. That’s nice. Bush said that too. Obama could, of course, change his mind without any apparent consequences. ”
Like you. It ‘s complete projection now.
Did you believe it when Bush said it?
Redshift
joe — I think you’re over-reading. The point isn’t that there’s no difference between Bush and Obama, the point is that if our laws against torture are not enforced because it is politically inconvenient, then the statement “America does not torture” is false, the truth is that whether America tortures is at the whim of each president. That is the precedent that will be set if we accept that an executive order is enough to put a stop to this.
Sophist
I think the point is not that Obama is particularly likely to torture anyone. He says that his government will not torture, and I believe him. The point is that we shouldn’t have to trust him. Our only assurance that people aren’t having their fingernail pulled out in our name shouldn’t be that the President is a good guy. There need to be consequences, so that if someone who isn’t a good person is ever in the position to torture, there will be something to give them pause.
Nellcote
But isn’t it up to the congress to investigate and recommend to the DoJ if there is evidence of a crime? Why is this all on the Prez? They don’t need his permission.
wolfetone
Funny how a bunch of you didn’t bother to notice that it was Tim who posted this, not John. So the comments about John’s politics are rather dumb–and they would be even if John had written this.
Tim’s points are good ones that deserves serious consideration, not knee-jerk defensiveness.
And for all of you who are so sure that the first Bush, or Reagan, or whoever didn’t institute policies that amount to torture, how do you know this to be true? We do know that the Reagan administration supported rightwing death squads all over South America, which seems to me to be about the same thing if not worse. Rendition was practiced during Clinton’s tenure.
Stefan
Obama’s White House issued Executive Orders forbidding the use of any interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, or federal torture laws, and explicitly forbade exactly those torture practices Bush engaged in.
And the next president can issue an Executive Order rescinding Obama’s Executive Order and can torture on his merry way, knowing full well we don’t prosecute people for that in this country anymore.
Stefan
But isn’t it up to the congress to investigate and recommend to the DoJ if there is evidence of a crime?
No, that’s not Congress’ job. The Dept. of Justice doesn’t need Congress to tell it there’s evidence of a crime. They know it already.
omen
Obama says that he won’t let Americans torture. That’s nice. Bush said that too. Obama could, of course, change his mind without any apparent consequences.
that’s nice. an preemptive judgement of guilt without evidence and before it happens. if you’re so sure obama’s going to be a torturer, why bother waiting? why not call for impeachment right now? not to do so makes you complicit.
omen
***Update***
The Onion.
has this page covered what happened to al-libi?