The President on Torture

Posted on 04/29/2009 at 9:02 pm by Bob Cesca

Other observations on the press conference later, but I wanted to jump on this right away since it looks like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are discussing the president’s torture remarks.

While I agree that there ought to be investigations and prosecutions for torture, the president can’t go on television and say that members of the previous administration committed any sort of crime. So it might’ve felt nice to you and me for the president to have said, yeah, those guys violated the law.

But imagine the craptastical legal morass it would’ve created: a chief executive announcing who’s guilty on national television. It would sabotage the whole thing. I’m satisfied with “waterboarding is torture” and “it was a mistake.” And the investigation needs to happen in a non-partisan way. The president’s responses were sharp without screwing the whole deal.

This entry was posted in Torture and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.windonwater.net QueenTiye

    This is why Bob has my undying loyalty. Bob speaks wisdom… :) QT

  • GItheJOE

    I heart bob.

  • Lauren

    Very wise. Thank you for recognizing this.

  • jmy

    Maybe “waterboarding is torture” and “it was a mistake” are just code language for “it was illegal”.If torture is wrong and illegal, and waterboarding is torture and the president believes that, then obviously a law was violated. I don’t see any need for him to out right say these people committed a crime.I heart Bob too!

  • http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/bird/flamingo/honolulu/flamingo01.jpg veralynn

    agreed QT and Joe and jmy

  • kansasdem

    Wow! The opposite of a unitary executive!No ONE person runs the country!What a concept!

  • Theghostsong

    Well that explains a lot. I was wondering why W and crew hadn’t been beheaded and their families de-gentrified.That would also explain why people were calling it an “election” instead of a “coup.”

  • incredulous72

    I absolutely agree.I think some people in this country were so used to the way W. did things (even though he was wrong in ideology and execution), that they expect President Obama to do the same, but just with a different ideology. He has to let this play out through the Justice Department and Congress. He must stay above the fray. I believe he made the right move tonight in his answer.

  • http://www.osborneink.com Matt Osborne

    An executive who understands his Constitutional limits?! What’s the world coming to!!!

  • jonah

    Thank you again, Bob. ♥

  • Prozac Boy

    So is this why Fox Noise didn’t want to televise the news conference. Of course this is what they did have to say.April 29, 2009100 days, 3 press solo press conferencesThe President just wrapped up the third solo press conference of his presidency. It lasted just under 60 minutes and he took 13 questions. Not much news though.And that concludes the 100th day.

  • brutlyhonest

    You nailed it Bob. The President can’t determine guilt and pass judgment – that’s what the courts are for.

    Undue command influence – like a general @ GITMO telling the prosecutors and judges what the outcome of tribunals is expected to be – is a very bad thing.

  • Lexaburn

    Yeah, I saw a bit of Keith and Rachel trying to tie Obama’s hands on this.Yeah, Barack Hussein Obama, our 44th president, is going to tell the country that be believes his predecessor is guilty of war crimes during a nationally televised Q & A. The question was framed in a similar fashion to those corrupt-assed debates they were having last year. Not surprising it came from the Fake Fapper idiot that took umbrage at the idea of Obama sneaking cigarettes during the primary. Fucking imbecile.You know, the president could have easily posed the question to any media dork that likes to fill objective reporting with opinion, and you’d have gotten an answer just as…succinct.Actually, Obama’s statement concerning “reflection” invites any media dork attempting to put pressure on him to “reflect” on why, for about six years, the majority of the media swine accepted idiotic euphemisms for what the Bush crew were doing. The media swine may also “reflect” on who they’re looking to serve: their corporate masters, themselves, or the people taking them seriously as vessels of information.

  • http://www.podiumcafe.com Podium Cafe

    Agreed as well. He’s letting it fall on the prosecutors to prosecute. Devilishly simple, not to mention far less political.Didn’t Nixon once pronounce Charles Manson guilty in the middle of the trial? Obama >>> Nixon

  • http://pushingfiftygently.blogspot.com/ Jaliya

    Bob, your thoughts here are fresh air. I’ve long thought of Obama as a meticulous strategist, and a speaker who considers every word before he uses it. *What* sweet relief for citizens who THINK. ;-) I love your word “craptastical” … Is it in a dictionary anywhere yet?I suppose there will be those who will blast Obama for his measured, seemingly monotonous (in speed) responses to the “surprised, enchanted, troubled…” question at the press con yesterday … He was to my eye thinking his way into a response, and wanting to carefully articulate his ideas. Meaning obviously is important to this man. And yes, he’s the most public of public figures, so he has to measure every word against the effect it could have …I have no doubt that Obama’s visceral reaction to torture is DISGUST.