I am trying to square the rationale

[LA Ute]

I actually have to do some work now, but I can say this and hope it's helpful. I'm a conservative Republican, but not a wingnut. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don't watch Fox News stars like O'Reilly or Beck. In fact, don't watch any cable news. I do enjoy the Fox Special Report because of the nightly panel discussion, but I rarely watch it. Does that place me on a spectrum for y'all?

So, with that background that I hope exposes my biases, I have to say I am uncomfortable with waterboarding and the other interrogation tactics that have become so controversial. Based on what we know, despite my misgivings I support the CIA and other using those tactics to the extent they have been used. What bothers me about the current state of this national discussion are these things:

*The pure politics involved in Obama's decision to leave the door open to prosecuting not those who peformed the interrogations, but those who approved them, opined legally on them, and so forth. I cannot imagine anything more divisive that a president could do. I hope I would say that if the parties' roles were reversed.

*I heard a Con Law prof say that never in U.S. history has an incoming presidential administration prosecuted members of the previous one for decisions made in the exercise of Consitutional powers. I don't know if that is true. Any sober-minded observer has to see the plicy problems that would arise from such prosecutions.

*The cynicism of the Congressional Democrats who are making a big deal of this issue. By all acounts they all seemed to be well aware of what was going on. If there are prosecutions I hope those politicians are all put under oath.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day.

[BlueHair]

What law? It will come down to a political law, not a real law.

It is odd to me that liberals, ultra liberals that is, want this thing pursued and strictly interpreted. However, when it comes to laws concerning undocumenteds, they would turn a blind eye.

I guess we could all be accused of this. Laws that are important depend on our political point of view. That is why I firmly believe if this thing is pursued it is about politics and has nothing to do with the law.

True. A law that isn't well defined isn't a law at all. Maybe talking about it will lead to more strict definitions of what is or isn't acceptable.

[BlueHair]

I actually have to do some work now, but I can say this and hope it's helpful. I'm a conservative Republican, but not a wingnut. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don't watch Fox News stars like O'Reilly or Beck. In fact, don't watch any cable news. I do enjoy the Fox Special Report because of the nightly panel discussion, but I rarely watch it. Does that place me on a spectrum for y'all?

So, with that background that I hope exposes my biases, I have to say I am uncomfortable with waterboarding and the other interrogation tactics that have become so controversial. Based on what we know, despite my misgivings I support the CIA and other using those tactics to the extent they have been used. What bothers me about the current state of this national discussion are these things:

*The pure politics involved in Obama's decision to leave the door open to prosecuting not those who peformed the interrogations, but those who ap[proved them, opined legally on them, and so forth. I cannot imagine anything more divisive that a president could do. I hope I would say that if the parties' roles were reversed.

*The cynicism of the Congressional Democrats who are making a big deal of this issue. By all acounts they all seemed to be well aware of what was going on. If there are prosecutions I hope they are put inder oath.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day.

Yes. They need to interrogate Pelosi and the rest of the gang that knew about it. I am all for opening this thing wide open. Give us a glance of what really goes on in our government.

[TripletDaddy]

I actually have to do some work now, but I can say this in and hope it's helpful. I'm a conservative Republican, but not a wingnut. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh and I don't watch Fox News stars like O'Reilly or Beck. In fact, don't watch any cable news. I do enjoy the Fox Special Report because of the nightly panel discussion, but I rarely watch it. Does that place me on a spectrum for y'all?

So, with that background that I hope exposes my biases, I have to say I am uncomfortable with waterboarding and the other interrogation tactics that have become so controversial. Based on what we know, despite my misgivings I support the CIA and other using those tactics to the extent they have been used. What bothers me about the current state of this national discussion are these things:

*The pure politics involved in Obama's decision to leave the door open to prosecuting not those who peformed the interrogations, but those who ap[proved them, opined legally on them, and so forth. I cannot imagine anything more divisive that a president could do. I hope I would say that if the parties' roles were reversed.

*The cynicism of the Congressional Democrats who are making a big deal of this issue. By all acounts they all seemed to be well aware of what was going on. If there are prosecutions I hope they are put inder oath.

Anyway, that's my rant for the day.

Nice post.

1. I am not a wingnut.
2. To prove such, I will offer that I also uneasy about waterboarding
3. Except I am not really that uneasy about it. In fact, I support the CIA's use of it under Bush's direction.
4. What I really wanted to say was that I dislike Obama. To make that less transparent, I padded that with my disclaimer that I don't watch Foxnews.

[LA Ute]

Nice post.

1. I am not a wingnut.
2. To prove such, I will offer that I also uneasy about waterboarding
3. Except I am not really that uneasy about it. In fact, I support the CIA's use of it under Bush's direction.
4. What I really wanted to say was that I dislike Obama. To make that less transparent, I padded that with my disclaimer that I don't watch Foxnews.

TD, I would try to respond sincerely and thoughtfully, and perhaps point out, for example, that I said nothing about Obama, but about his decision. But if I did that you would just hurt my tender feelings again and shatter my fragile hopes. I . . . just . . . can't . . . go there. Sorry!

[Coach McGuirk]

If I were President Obama, and excuse me if someone here has stated this as I skimmed the thread, I would not open this box of prosecuting past admins. Obama, by stopping the torture interrogations, has opened himself up to the same prosecution if an event takes place that could have been stopped throught obtaining of information throught these methods.

I find this to be grandstanding and little, if anything, will be done about it. All for show and to give President Obama the moral highground.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I wish more politicians would do the right thing and not worry about it being a political winner. If Bush administration people broke the law, they need to be prosecuted. They shouldn't get a free pass. Hell, they wanted to impeach Clinton because he lied about banging a chick with a cigar.

Fine, then let the democrats do what they think is the right thing. What's the worst that has come to light so far? Two high level al-Qaeda folks were waterboarded and they yielded valuable information.

First, it's questionable whether waterboarding is torture.

Second, it wasn't done on American soil and the men waterboarded weren't American citizens- so they're not entitled to constitutional guarantees. As far as I know, the previous cases decided by the Supreme Court have primarily dealt with access to the federal courts and have been based more on questions of judicial branch power and the congress's ability to limit that power in terms of hearing cases involving these detainees. Whether they are entitled to certain constitutional rights is a totally different question which in the past has been decided against the detainees.

Third, and this is more of a popular opinion argument- but people are going to look at the guys that were waterboarded and really not care what happened to them. If limbs were cut off, family members made to suffer, fingernails pulled, etc. then I think people would be more uncomfortable about it. But Dick Cheney is asking them to release all of the memos for a reason, and that's because he knows that it will show the benefit of the methods used and the information they received. Legal uncertainties will be resolved in the favor of Bush's policy in the minds of most people.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

If I were President Obama, and excuse me if someone here has stated this as I skimmed the thread, I would not open this box of prosecuting past admins. Obama, by stopping the torture interrogations, has opened himself up to the same prosecution if an event takes place that could have been stopped throught obtaining of information throught these methods.

I find this to be grandstanding and little, if anything, will be done about it. All for show and to give President Obama the moral highground.

According to a Washington Post story, Obama is hoping the crisis kind of goes away. He thought that posting the memos would satisfy his constituents and make the congressional democrats back off from trying to prosecute Bush officials (I don't really understand the logic, but there you go).

[BlueHair]

Fine, then let the democrats do what they think is the right thing. What's the worst that has come to light so far? Two high level al-Qaeda folks were waterboarded and they yielded valuable information.

First, it's questionable whether waterboarding is torture.

Second, it wasn't done on American soil and the men waterboarded weren't American citizens- so they're not entitled to constitutional guarantees. As far as I know, the previous cases decided by the Supreme Court have primarily dealt with access to the federal courts and have been based more on questions of judicial branch power and the congress's ability to limit that power in terms of hearing cases involving these detainees. Whether they are entitled to certain constitutional rights is a totally different question which in the past has been decided against the detainees.

Third, and this is more of a popular opinion argument- but people are going to look at the guys that were waterboarded and really not care what happened to them. If limbs were cut off, family members made to suffer, fingernails pulled, etc. then I think people would be more uncomfortable about it. But Dick Cheney is asking them to release all of the memos for a reason, and that's because he knows that it will show the benefit of the methods used and the information they received. Legal uncertainties will be resolved in the favor of Bush's policy in the minds of most people.

It may very well come out in favor of Bush. That's why I would like some transparency in government.

The argument about them not being on US soil or being US citizens is a really slippery slope. If we are truly at war, then they are prisoners of war and deserve humane treatment. The Bush administration called them unlawful combatants in an effort to circumvent the Third Geneva Convention. He declares war against an idea, then tries to get aound the rules by claiming they aren't regular military so we don't have to treat them the same.

[myboynoah]

It may very well come out in favor of Bush. That's why I would like some transparency in government.

I'm at this point right now. Release the docs that show the results and let the American people decide. Let's have full disclosure sans Obama's edits.

If done so, I suspect the majority will conclude the using waterboarding was a no brainer.