Barack Obama responded quickly and firmly to yesterday’s confirmation that agents of the Bush administration have been torturing the people it detained indefinitely without charges:
The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer – it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It’s time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It’s time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values.
Damn straight! It’s about time that we heard a straightforward, unequivocal rejection of torture. And it’s a damned shame we haven’t heard it from the current occupant of the White House.
I like my version of his speech much better:
“The secret authorization of brutal killing of kittens is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill dangerous kittens, but killing kittens is not a part of the answer – it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Killing kittens is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Killing kittens is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Killing kittens is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It’s time to tell the world that America rejects killing kittens without exception or equivocation. It’s time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values.”
Lets play fill in the word with political speeches….
Yeah, that’s cute, Joseph. No, actually, it’s not, because it presumes that nobody in United States government supports torture or disagrees with Obama’s statements. And that’s false. The administration of George W. Bush disagrees, implementing standards of interrogation that meet the federal legal definition of torture. In debate this summer, nearly all the Republican candidates fell over each other to talk about how much they’d engage in activity that meets the federal legal definition of torture.
So Barack Obama’s statement is not a meaningless statement with the level of consensus of a statement about killing kittens. It is a push to move back to the standard that everybody USED to agree with before Bush and the authoritarian Republicans changed the standard.
Inform yourself before you comment again.
I wasn’t trying to imply that his speech was trivial due to consensus of opinion. I’m implying that his speech, as much as some may like it, is just another politicized and spineless sound bite that may espouse nice principles, but in the end is *probably* heartless.
He could have filled in any number of groups in that speech, changed a couple words around, and talked about anything else he didn’t like about the current administration. You know what a Senator does when he really has a problem with something? He talks to other Senators and to House members about getting some legislation sponsored. Then he goes to the American people and makes a clear case about why every American should vote for it. With all the campaign money he has, i’m sure he could get many ad spots across the nation. And then he gets legislation passed that specifically outlaws what he is against.
Instead he reads a nice speech by some nice speechwriters about how ______ is an affront to our nation’s values and how he’s going to do such a better job. How about he uses the power he has NOW to make a difference, instead of asking us to give him MORE power before he shows he can use the power he already has?
Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act and one of hisa stated reasons for doing so was concern about the Geneva convention.
I don’t find torture trivial.
I also happen to like kittens.
joseph, i think you need a class on reading for comprehension.
the noun being terrorist isn’t the issue. the verb changes you made are what trivialize it; obama is saying that we should track down, capture, or kill terrorists — but that we should not torture them.
if you don’t understand the difference between these verbs, … well, then you’re part of the problem.
(i’m not sure i agree with the killing. but i know i don’t agree with the torturing.)
I changed the subject. He said “Torture is an affront to…blah blah blah” (political speak)
I replaced the SUBJECT of the sentence with killing kittens. The subject is what was changed, and he needs to prove actual commitment to doing something with his position in the Senate before he tries using it for political points running for President.
Obama’s voting record is more than clear cut.
What part of that do you not understand?
And why are you hating on kittens?
Sure, he voted the “right” way, but our governmental system isn’t structured in a way that makes him powerless. He could do much more. He could sponsor legislation, appeal to the people of the United States to get some initiatives done BEFORE being President. Instead, he’d rather parrot the party line and ask people to elect him President, afraid of actually being a leader and possibly losing the respect of the insiders for doing it. I’d be much more prone to vote for someone who actually took the elected office they have and doing something with it, instead of blaming it all on the President and claiming that as long as THEY get elected President, THEN they’ll fix things.
Wow, I’m sorry, it’s not like the Republican senators and congressmen managed to cram legislation down the Democcrats throats when the Republicans had the majority. But now that the Democrats have the majority, hell, those four (if I remember correctly) vetos that Bush has exercised over almost 7 years is just jamming up the ability of Obama and Clinton from actually implementing real change through Congress. They need to be President to actually be leaders who cause change. (sarcasm)
Give me a break. If you buy that, then give me all of your money so I can prove to you that I’m a great money manager.
Of course Obama has sponsored legislation, that’s what senators do. Go look at his senate website.
If you disagree with his stand on particular issues, maybe you should talk about those specific issues.
Why are you trying to trivialize torture?
Obama’s the one trivializing torture by fitting it into a nice little stump speech about how he’ll fix America/torture/the debt/national security/your happiness as long as you elect him President.
Torture is horrible. I do not think torture is a good thing that should be practiced throughout the world. My point though, is that Obama is praying on the ignorance of the people just like many other politicans.
Of course Obama has sponsored legislation, but why exactly does he need to be elected President to stop torture? How about he stops the torture now, and THEN we elect him President? I mean, it can’t be that hard for a good leader to rally support among Americans to *NOT TORTURE PEOPLE* now can it?
Obama’s just counting on Americans to believe that he needs to be President to enact his policies, which is a great cover for why he hasn’t gotten legislation outlawing torture passed.
I disagree with the fact he hasn’t put his neck and career on the line to stand up for things while in the Senate he suddenly believes in as President. I apply this to Hillary. And I think that because of people like this, politics is in a sorry state where the people aren’t represented well.
My understanding is that legislation was indeed passed and torture is indeed illegal, but in spite of that, Bush authorized secret torture–all the while publicly declaring that “America does not torture”.
We know Bush has been writing a “signing statement” every time Congress passes a law he doesn’t like, explaining how he’s not going to follow the law–which is why he has hardly used the veto. Obviously passing laws isn’t enough, because we have a president who believes he is above the law.
So explain to me how “rallying support” is going to stop torture if legislation doesn’t do it? Are all the American people supposed to just going to stomp down to Cuba and overrun Guantanamo like they’re storming the Bastille or something? And how are you going to “rally support” if the major networks won’t even cover the story about Bush’s secret torture authorization and the people don’t even know about it?
Obama’s opposition to torture is nothing new. I spoke with his office at the time the Military Commissions act was being voted on and his office expressed to me his support for the Geneva convention.
What “stump speech” are you talking about that supposedly “trivializes torture”? I’ve heard that Obama made a major policy speech about Iraq that got buried in the news about Clinton’s campaign finances. But I just don’t believe he said torture is “trivial”. You’ll have to show me a link for that one. You’re the one equating torture with kittens.
I think he means that, if this speech is for real then it’s amazing, but it’s not a speech model we haven’t seen many times before.
“The secret authorization of heathen religions is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security.”
“The secret authorization of foreigners is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security.”
“The secret authorization of mixed gender/race relationships is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security.”
I strongly disagree with the above 3 statements, as everyone who knows me is aware, but that phrase we’ve heard, with various subjects, a number of times.
I very much hope this one of opposing torture is true. Is the real president attitude that America so needs. However, optimist I may be, but blind to history’s repeats I’m not.
Oh, and that should be “mixed sexuality” or such, not “mixed gender”, though, y’know, those heterosexual relationships do have a high divorce rate.
Kittens torture little mice. Why does Barack Obama hate little kittens?