His true colors being that of the covering-up, torturing and assassinating kind with his choice for the new general to lead Afghanistan operations.
The parents of slain Army Ranger and NFL star Pat Tillman voiced concerns Tuesday that the general who played a role in mischaracterizing his death could be put in charge of military operations in Afghanistan.
It was a point of pride that the Red Cross would never be allowed in the door, Jeff says. This is important because it defied the Geneva Conventions, which require that the Red Cross have access to military prisons. “Once, somebody brought it up with the colonel. ‘Will they ever be allowed in here?’ And he said absolutely not. He had this directly from General McChrystal and the Pentagon that there’s no way that the Red Cross could get in â€” they won’t have access and they never will. This facility was completely closed off to anybody investigating, even Army investigators.”
There is a lot of talk being thrown around about new directions and new thinking, but what stops manyâ€”and rightly soâ€”are the questions about how McChrystal, as commander of the Joint Special Operations Command, is implicated in allegations of torture, assassinations, and general disregard for rules.
See “Torture Memos in a Nutshell” below.
Employees of the Bush Administration did this.
Now the Obama Administration say those employees shouldn’t be held accountable because the Bush Administration told them it wasn’t torture.
What kind of fool could not know that this was torture?
Hey, all you progressives, Greens, African-Americans, Gays, Democrats, libertarians, and other liberals who worked so hard to get Barrack Obama elected, where is the change you busted your asses for?
The president’s incredibly imperialist wielding of executive power.
By Bruce Fein
In early February, President Obama sought another imperial power before the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the case Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan. … During oral argument before the 9th Circuit, Obama echoed the state-secrets argument made by Bush and Cheney. Similarly, the president who promised “change” is wielding the tool of state secrets in aiming to dismiss, without the gathering of evidence, challenges to the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, which entailed warrantless phone or e-mail interceptions of American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Thomas R. Eddlem exposes the Obama fraud:
Just as President Bush publicly and repeatedly stated that â€œthis nation does not torture,â€ but then secretly engaged in torture, President Obamaâ€™s public rhetoric against torture is increasingly at odds with his decisons to defend John Yoo (the former Justice Department official who authored the “torture memo” justifying Bush administration policy), keep in place policies that have protected torture, and even keep in office Bush-era appointees who helped establish torture policies. Click here for more…
Americans Want Torture Inquiry, Obama Doesnâ€™t
A Gallup Poll released February 12 revealed that 62 percent of Americans want to investigate or criminally prosecute Bush administration officials who authorized torture in the so-called â€œwar on terror.â€ But even though President Obama has said numerous times that â€œnobody’s above the law,â€ on February 10 he used the Bush administrationâ€™s â€œstate secretsâ€ gambit to quash a lawsuit attempting to penalize some of those involved in renditioning torture subjects. Click here for more…
Glen Greenwald unleashes some liberal righteous indignation at the fraud that is Obama. He gets all ol’ skool on Barry because Barry is using Bush’s state secrets argument to prevent the courts from going after those who tortured. We’ve said it here at PCD repeatedly … Barry = Dubya! I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.
It isn’t merely that the Obama DOJ is invoking the privilege for this particular case, which contains allegations of torture that are as brutal and severe as any. That’s bad enough. But worse is that they’re invoking the most abusive parts of the Bush theory: namely, that the privilege can be used to block the adjudication of entire cases (rather than, say, justify the concealment of specific classified documents or other pieces of evidence), and, worse still, can be used to prevent judicial scrutiny even when the alleged government conduct is blatantly illegal and, as here, a war crime of the greatest seriousness.
They’re embracing a theory that literally places government officials beyond the rule of law. No minimally honest person who criticized the Bush administration for relying on this instrument can defend the Obama administration for doing so here.
From the Antiwar.com blog:
Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah says â€” and he should know â€” there is no difference between the policy of â€œabsolute supportâ€ for Israel between Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
Obamaâ€™s own spokesman Robert Gibbs affirmed that, as under Bush, â€œall options remain on the tableâ€ with regard to Iran.
A recent executive order from the new president allows the CIA to continue to operate its â€œsafe housesâ€ â€” possibly a torture loophole.
Even President Obamaâ€™s massive stimulus plan continues the print-and-spend insanity preferred by the former administration. Continue reading
Bracing for a Major Disappointment
The Americans who voted for Barack Obama as president were promised change they could count on, but it rather looks as if they may actually be asked to make do with a mildly refurbished Clinton administration, with many of the same officials and nearly all of the same policies. The policies are drawn from the same centrist Democratic Party sources as those of Bill Clinton, and Obamaâ€™s admirers might even find themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of stateâ€”which makes no sense whatsoever.
Are there no significant differences of view on war and peace between the two of them? Why did the American (and international) public have to endure a year and a half of Democratic Party primaries in addition to the national election contest if the Democratic race could have been settled by the flip of a coin between people who believed in the same policies and thought the same thoughts?
Where is the sweeping change Barack Obama was promising the electorate? Looking back, he was rarely specific about the changes he intended to make. He constantly invoked the principle of change, without going much into the messy details, for whichâ€”admittedlyâ€”he was criticized at the time.
Obama and the national security question: the sellout accelerates
By Justin Raimondo
Most politicians wait at least until they’ve been sworn in before they start breaking their campaign promises. In this sense, as in so many others, Barack Obama represents an entirely new phenomenon: the politician who preemptively reneges. More…