Obama says Bush-approved waterboarding was torture

[ProSense]

Obama says Bush-approved waterboarding was torture

Source: Reuters
By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama called simulated drowning a form of torture on Wednesday, and defended his decision to end a practice used against terrorism suspects by the Bush administration.

Obama said the process, known as waterboarding, violated American ideals and was not appropriate even if it made getting information from suspected enemies easier.

"Waterboarding violates our ideals and our values. I do believe that it is torture," he told a news conference.

"That's why I put an end to these practices."

Pressed on whether that meant former President George W. Bush's administration had sanctioned torture, Obama said: "I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that ... whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake."

link

[jody]

1. Big deal. Does Obama believe torture is a crime and if yes, will he prosecute? n/t

[Thrill]

2. The President doesn't Prosecute.

[jody]

7. LOL, Obama can direct Holder to aggressively investigate and prosecute, something Obama has not done

[ProSense]

10. No he cannot. n/t

[jody]

14. Yes he can. Have a nice day. n/t

[Thrill]

15. So you want him to do the very thing we criticize Bush for? Thats Politicizing the DOJ

The DOJ should be working as an Independent body. The WH telling the DOJ who to prosecute is politicizing the DOJ. I thought we wanted Rove's tactics out?

[jody]

19. Why then did Holder speak for Obama about reinstating the assault weapons ban? You can't have it

both ways.

If Holder is independent and apolitical as you assert, then Holder has no right to speak for Obama on political issues.

[Thrill]

21. Reinstating the Assault Weapons ban is a policy decision

that can't be done without Congress. It has to pass Congress, Obama has to sign it, and Holder has to enforce it. Big damn difference.

[jody]

23. No difference at all, Holder presumed to speak for Obama. Investigating and prosecuting torture is

also a policy decision as you say.

[Thrill]

25. Its a big difference. And I'm sure you know it. I fail to see how you can even compare the two

You're trying to compare the passage of a certain law, that has to go through the legislative branch. With whether or not someone broke an existing law and whether they should be prosecuted. I fail to see the connection at all.

[jody]

29. Surely you know Obama directed Holder to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the illegal

arms flow to Mexico's drug cartels, don't you?

What is the difference between "directing to investigate and prosecute illegal arms sales" and "directing to investigate and prosecute illegal torture"?

[ProSense]

27. Defining a policy is an executive function, not a judicial one.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

[jody]

30. See # 29. n/t

[ProSense]

33. See # 27. n/t

[jody]

36. Apparently you claim a President has no executive responsibility for the operation of the following.

* Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)
* Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
* Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
* Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
* United States Marshals Service (USMS)
* Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

[ProSense]

39. Stop

Maybe you need to visit those sites. The President doesn't run the DoJ or any related organization. That simply is not a function of the exectutive branch.

[jody]

42. Your answer is "President has no executive responsibility" for those offices. Have a great day. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

31. A decision to investigate and prosecute is NOT Obama's decision

Nor should it be.

Ever heard of Nixon and the Saturday Night Massacre?

Ever heard of Bush and the U.S. Attorneys Scandal? (Using U.S. Attorneys for partisan witch hunts and firing those who wouldn't participate)

I do NOT want a Justice Department that acts on the president's unilateral whims and orders. In fact, I'd probably support a Constitutional Amendment for a separate election for the Attorney General, like many states have.

[stillcool]

17. Did you know that members of ..

Congress have formally requested that the Attorney General appoint a Special Prosecutor. By the way, when are those photos coming out?

[vaberella]

40. They should be out soon. The ACLU is moving on that.

I had heard it was to be released this week. But maybe next week. What the ACLU might due is to wait until Cheney's paper's are released which are to show how effective they were and to mitigate any positive responses to those papers with the pictures.

[ProSense]

3. Presidents don't prosecute, and

it is a big deal.

[jody]

8. See #7 n/t

[vaberella]

5. Educate yourself on the process. Plus he's already did what he had to do in regards to this.

So your indignation is needless.

[jody]

9. See #7 n/t

[LakeSamish706]

4. Yes he did, and he did a major dance around the torture issue.... Not sure why he won't come...

right out and say that this should be investigated.... But hey, what do I know?

[vaberella]

6. He's said it before...how many damn times does he need to say it.

It's in Holder's hands now, as it should have been from the beginning.

[LakeSamish706]

11. Yeah he has, but he is not making a big push for it either. If you look back at any of my posts...

you will see that I am a series Obama supporter and do not call him on many things, but this I am calling him on....

[ProSense]

12. Waterboarding is torture.

That's a definitive statement, and this was a key press conference so a lot of people most likely watched.

Obama didn't mince words in making that statement: Waterboarding is torture.

[stillcool]

26. I don't think this President will ever...

advocate prosecuting the previous administration..especially when almost half of the American people are okay with torture. If people can only express their displeasure at the President regarding the crimes of the last administration than that's where it needs to go. I just wish that the more vociferous advocates for torture prosecution would contact their members of Congress. But seeing how that's not going to happen, I am just fine with directing that anger at the President. Anything to keep the issue alive. I'd really like it if the American people were saturated with photos and accounts of what we've done.

[jody]

13. Posts like yours, mine and others bring out flocks of apologists. Are they paid for their posts? n/t

[ProSense]

16. Is ignorance bliss?

Why don't you deal with the facts: The President cannot interfere with the justice department.

[HopeOverFear]

18. They want revenge, that's all. They're not interested in justice

and eye for an eye. Bush went around the law, so now Obama should do the same.

[jody]

20. See #19 n/t

[george_maniakes]

22. I guess some people believe the president interfering with the DOJ...

is only an issue if the Republicans are in charge.

[HopeOverFear]

24. Pretty much

[stillcool]

28. How many posters are you accusing..

of being paid? Anyone who thinks the prosecution of crimes is a function of the Justice Department? Anyone who thinks the last thing this President should do, is actively pursue the prosecution of the last Administration? Or anyone who disagrees with you?

[jody]

32. I accused no one, I asked a question? I don't know if that occurs or not but I do know that at least

one DUer posted several threads with links to another site that contained that poster's items for which that poster got paid for the number of visits.

The several posts I saw were on a variety of topics.

[stillcool]

34. So if someone has another site..

that has advertisers their opinions are somehow tainted? Even though said poster is supportive of Democrats? Would my Congressman be allowed to post here?

[jody]

35. I expressed my disapproval of being tricked into visiting another site by a DUer who posted links to

their work on another site for which they got paid.

Nothing more and nothing less.

[ProSense]

37. Complain to the moderators, otherwise this is a cheap tactic:

You can't indirectly accuse posters of being paid shill simply because they disagree with you. That usually a sign of a lame argument.

[jody]

38. I repeat, I have not accused any one of being a "paid shill". It's disingenuous of you to twist my

post that way.

Why don't you reply to my # 36?

[ProSense]

41. "Are they paid for their posts? "

That's an indirect accusation. I think you are the one being disingenuous, even in feigning ignorance of the administration's responsibilities.

[jody]

44. Have a great evening, I'm off to bed. n/t

[vaberella]

43. You specifically said "paid posts" and "apologists" so uh....how are they twisting your words?