12 ms·

I just feel sick when I think of how helpless I am as a citizen while I watch my government's officials get away with shit like this. Yeah, I can sign petitions

by g0v 12y ago

I just feel sick when I think of how helpless I am as a citizen while I watch my government's officials get away with shit like this. Yeah, I can sign petitions, vote, contact my congressman, but I always have the feeling of someone that's just watching from the outside. My hope is that those people that we don't see or hear about that work around injustices like these are doing what they can to keep some sort of balance. I try to convince myself sometimes that these people that love their country and want to do good are trying to use what power they have to make things right. I know for a fact that there are amazing people working in government and I hope the good stuff these people do just doesn't get much attention. I love my country, I served, I consider myself a patriot, but I worry about my children and their children. I don't expect much, if anything, to come of this and the fact that that feeling is common for me as an American puts knots in my stomach.

dangerlibrary 12y ago
Try living in DC. It's a special kind of hell to live in the city where all this is taking place - where the local news IS what is going on in Congress (good and bad) - and not even be able to write to a voting representative in either house.
- spacefight 12y ago
  If you can - take your tax money elsewhere.
  - dangerlibrary 12y ago
    Unfortunately, it is not possible to solve the problem that way. There are over 600,000 people living in this city - more than the population of Wyoming and Vermont. You wouldn't just tell everyone in Vermont to move to New Hampshire because the federal government can't get its act together. I was born and grew up in this city, as were many people who happen to fall on this side of the DC border.
    - spacefight 12y ago
      I agree that it's hard to relocate, that's why I stated "if you can". Some can and some do leave the places where they grew up for reasons of unhappiness with the policies of their gov.
      - dangerlibrary 12y ago
        That addresses my complaint, but doesn't solve the problem. There will always be residents of the District of Columbia - it's a city. Just like San Francisco or Chicago. The federal buildings make up a tiny fraction of the land area - the rest is private businesses and people's homes. The people who live in those homes should be allowed to vote.
        spacefight 12y ago
        I fully agree that everyone should be allowed to vote. Solving the specific problem is hard. I just wanted to give a small hint, that if someone is not happy with the status quo, they might try to change it. Of course I have to add, that first it would make much more sense to try to change the local sentiment first - usually done by enganging in your locale community.
        Cyther606 12y ago
        Relocating your family to an alternate tax farm wouldn't accomplish much. The social contract has been severed. In the USCIA, it's no longer possible to engage with your local community without being cognizant of government spies. After all that happened with the Occupy movement, if the criminals who oversaw these sadistic acts of torture aren't brought to justice, and it instead comes down to grassroots activism, I for one wouldn't count on justice. And here's to hoping that I can at least continue to speak frankly on the internet. I certainly foresee my use of Tor creating problems for me down the road. It's why I'm such a big fan of Bitcoin, because that's the only viable way I'm aware of to defund these psychopaths.
        12y ago
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  There was one itty bitty spot in the entire middle band of this continent that people could move to and wouldn't be able to vote. So hundreds of thousands of people did. Still confuses me.
  - dangerlibrary 12y ago
    I didn't move here, I was born here. I work here for a private company that has no relationship to the federal government. My home is here. The apathy about this issue is what confuses me - what harm would it do to allow DC residents to vote? What reason could you have to oppose DC citizens gaining the right to vote? The argument that federal government workers should be forbidden from voting is incredibly hollow - the vast majority of them reside outside the city. Also, this is tantamount to saying "Park Rangers in Idaho shouldn't be allowed to vote," a position I have never heard put forward.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming your ancestors. I'm not against letting DC vote to fix the problem at this point. But this situation is ridiculous. There was no reason to start a major city in the no-voting zone.
      - eru 12y ago
        Why? Not having a vote is not a major pain point for most people.
      - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
        The no-voting zone was created around two already existing cities (Georgetown and Alexandria).
    - jfoutz 12y ago
      Historically, i think it made some sense. now with instant communication, it seems hard for locals to influence congress unduly. Personally, I have no problem with adding DC as another state. Politically, it'll never happen (imho). why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators? There are probably many issues blocking, but on that one at least is a monster to overcome.
- discardorama 12y ago
  San Francisco is similar in a way. Nancy Pelosi keeps winning with massive margins, simply because of her name and the fact that she's part of the political machine here; and no one goes anywhere in SF politics without the backing of the machine. And the machine prevents viable challengers from coming forth. For all practical purposes, we don't _have_ a representative who will represent us; she just represents the rich and the powerful.
  - samstave 12y ago
    And she is corrupt to the core, maybe almost as much as Feinstein who's husband's company Bechtel was one of the top profiteers in the wars.
    - cwp 12y ago
      And yet, Feinstein was the one who did battle with the CIA to get the torture report published. Establishing that crimes were committed is the first step toward prosecuting the criminals. I'd be the last to defend corruption, but it's important to point out that these things are relative. A republic can tolerate a little graft and profiteering. It cannot tolerate torture.
      - kabdib 12y ago
        Read about Feinstein and the crypto wars. She's a lying sack of garbage. Maybe, just maybe she had an attack of conscience about the CIA thing -- my guess is that she realized it would make it out anyway, and decided it would be better to look good on that account than defend something obviously illegal.
        kabdib 12y ago
        I should add: And then work to have any repercussions be a wrist slap. "Don't do that again, okay?" and a wink. Just watch. Nothing will happen. I wonder who the next intelligence committee lapdog is going to be?
      - 12y ago
justcommenting 12y ago
we often believe we can't do anything about all the bad things we see in the world, but it's almost always necessary for people to first decide that things will change before they do. please join others and continue fighting for the democracy you want to live in and that you want your children to live in. it's going to take all of us.
- innguest 12y ago
  Empty hopes and empty feelings. I guess that's all Stockholm syndrome victims know to do. If this were France there would be manure inside the White House by now. But the new Americans are so uneducated (though highly schooled) that they can't even help but defend the same slogans (democracy!) that their overlords convinced them to believe in. Pathetic.
  - dangerlibrary 12y ago
    Agents of the United States government committed these crimes. Other agents of the same manure-free government investigated and published their findings, in graphic detail. Now, we are in the process of getting more agents of the very same un-shit-covered government to act on that report. I fail to see how ruminant poop would improve the situation. Must be a French thing.
    - innguest 12y ago
      > I fail to see how ruminant poop would improve the situation. Contrast: Headline: Blah Blah Government Agents Blah Boring Blah Torture Blah More Big Words Blah Blah with: Headline: Protesting Citizens Dump Tons of Manure at White House for Blah Blah Government Agents Blah Boring... I can tell you from experience that the second one raises global awareness of the issue in a heartbeat and would put a lot more pressure onto slimy government accomplices to clean up their act. And that's how poop would help the situation. I'm sure you knew that and was just trying to be funny, though. EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot this great point: > [The US Government] committed these crimes > [The US Government] investigated and published their findings > [The US Government] are in the process of getting more agents [...] to act on that report This is hilarious. Corporations needs regulation because we don't trust the free market with all its different agents to regulate themselves, but you trust this one monolithic organization called the US Government to police and prosecute itself when the very crimes it committed are evidence enough that it can't? You should do stand-up.
fargolime 12y ago
A root cause of such problems is that people are free to hide behind their votes. Don't let them. Half the country effectively voted in favor of torture. That's how it was able to happen, and that's why it won't be prosecuted now. Cut those people out of your life wherever you can, especially if they are relatives. Everyone should have to pay a price for their nefarious beliefs.
- scarmig 12y ago
  A bit of your meaning is unclear, so I want to add something: If you are part of the half of Americans who voted for either of the two ruling parties, you voted for torture. The only people who haven't are those who don't vote, or who vote for (certain) third parties.
  - fargolime 12y ago
    Not voting or voting for a third party is worse than voting for the lesser evil of the only 2 viable parties.
    - einhverfr 12y ago
      Discussing politics with people on the other side of the isle and finding common ground is frankly more important than voting today.
      - fargolime 12y ago
        One can do both, although making a worse choice at the polls usually goes hand-in-hand with a closed mind, in my experience.
        einhverfr 12y ago
        My point is: the parties no longer represent us. We are lead to fight over wedge issues while the elites take everything. A vote doesn't matter by itself either. The only way a vote will have any impact is if you use it to add just a little sting to any political activity you do elsewhere. If your only political action is voting, you might as well stay home. The only real hope is if a large bipartisan alliance forms. That's more important than if we get Romney or Obama as President (two candidates who are mostly different in terms of party affiliation and skin color, but not in terms of approaches to governance).
harryf 12y ago
The biggest problem when your nation tortures people is you've trained people to torture; you've created institutionalized psychopaths. What do you do with them when their mission ends? Are they properly supported back into society or just dropped like most vets? Do the go home to become nightclub bouncers or security guards at your kids school? That's why we have to clean up this mess.
- smeyer 12y ago
  >The biggest problem when your nation tortures people is you've trained people to torture No, I disagree. I think the torturing itself and the moral failings it entails are a bigger problem than the (admittedly substantial) problem of reintegrating the individual torturers back into society.
  - harryf 12y ago
    OK agreed. Perhaps that should have read "the best argument for fence sitters on why we need to clean this up is ..." because a disturbing percentage of Americans seem to believe torture was justified http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-po...
  - lazyjones 12y ago
    Indeed - and from a purely practical standpoint: you've also created hundreds of millions, possibly billions of people who hate your country and perhaps feel that violence against its citizen, who voted for and continue to vote for such leaders, is justified.
- mkramlich 12y ago
  Another problem is that it can be used by others to justify torturing US soldiers, agents or officials that fall into their hands, if those others see the US as an enemy, and feel the US gov was conspiring or operating against them. That's not a world we want to live in. Torture is wrong, period. We're not the Good Guys because we wave a wand and say so. If we want to act like we have moral authority, and have credibility, and be able to show international leadership in the future again when there may be another major good-vs-evil rallying cause, requiring a coalition, then the US needs to maintain a certain image. But one based on facts, not on lies and contra-factual propaganda.
xorcist 12y ago
The normal answer would be to vote for a party that would stop this. This is democracy's answer. (I don't want to discuss much futher because of the downvotes, but the Five Why's can probably be utilized here.)
einhverfr 12y ago
I am an American expat living abroad. One thing that bugs me about this is that there is a shrill hyperpartisanship that underlies a lot of this discussion. Yes, we should be prosecuting torturers, their bosses, and those who aided and abetted this via existing CIA programs or via extraordinary rendition during the current and last two administrations. But Democrats won't sign on to something that will implicate Democratic party Presidents, nor will the GOP sign onto anything that will implicate a Republican president, no matter how despised he is by the Republican base. The result is a lawless government and a strict reminder that there is no such thing as a "government of laws." In the end, all governments are "governments of men."
- MCRed 12y ago
  As an norte american who was an expat for many years I agree. IT's amazing how different the perspective is when you get out of the US media bubble. Nobody, not CNN, not Fox, not MSNBC, etc, none of them really are critical of the US government. It's all whitewashed in a way that's hard to see when you're inside the bubble. And that whitewash is not just to defend the national government, but to defend the parties. I believe this is exactly the reason that the founders didn't want to have a party system. Some of their choices (like the original make up of the senate) I believe were specifically to prevent this. Further, the entire goal of having strong state governments and a weak federal government was to prevent these kinds of crimes. For the very reason that the federal government will not prosecute itself, a strong federal government is bad. (Principle agent problem.) Can you imagine if states were doing extraordinary rendition and torture? Highly unlikely. While at the same time, for a real war, there would be no problem fighting with a bunch of state militias banding together (and it would cost us a lot less... much of our problem is due to the adventurism of our permanent military-- hard to justify keeping it around if you aren't constantly finding wars to start, er, fight.)
  - einhverfr 12y ago
    It isn't just defending the parties. It is defending the corporations who effectively control the parties. In short the media is an important part of the power structure of the US. Why I read The "American Conservative," "Mother Jones," and "The Nation" more than I read The New York Times.
samstave 12y ago
We need a tax holiday. Everyone should refuse to pay taxes unless we are actually represented.
rayiner 12y ago
Painting this as a "government versus citizens" situation is simple minded. Latest polls show support for the CIA methods by 2:1 margin after the Senate Report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-po.... I'm not a big fan of Obama, but he's gotten an unfair shake on the national security front. The fact is that the broader electorate is indifferent about drone strikes and enhanced interrogation, but would pillory him if a terrorist attack happened "on his watch." If your theory of the world depends on Obama being duplicitous and going against the will of the people to do these things he promised he wouldn't do, I submit that it's not just republicans that may fairly be accused of ignoring reality when it comes to politics. The issue isn't why won't the government do what we want it to do. The issue is: why do we still want revenge after 14 years, after Iraq and after Afghanistan?
- canjobear 12y ago
  The article is about prosecuting people not just because of the torture was depraved but also because it was illegal. The Senate report finds that the CIA knew its actions were illegal and acted to cover them up. The fact that the majority of the populace approves of an illegal action in polls should not make the perpetrators less worthy of prosecution.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    If people broke laws they should be prosecuted. But let's describe the situation honestly: not "why does the government defy the people and not prosecute?" But "why doesn't the government defy the people and prosecute?"
    - sitkack 12y ago
      One I don't support your claim that people are in support of torture. Two if they do support it, _they_ also need to see bringing the participants of torture to justice. Popular polls replacing laws? What country is this?
InclinedPlane 12y ago
Run. For. Office. It's sad that this isn't seen as an option anymore, but it should be. There are tons of offices out there that people have a reasonable chance at attaining and can kick start a political career. Not everyone will do a good job and not everyone should do it, but too many people don't even consider it as an option. The result is that the people in office tend to be people who are driven by ambition, lust for power, or desire for fame, precisely the least suitable people for office, with abundantly visible results.
orbifold 12y ago
To someone from a nation responsible for a large genocide in the 20th century and at least one world war, Germany, the notion that you could "love your country" has only become non controversial again, recently. For example, flags are really only displayed by the population for major sport events, like the world cup and not for National Day. In fact a major part of political indoctrination in school was that the idea of the nation state is largely a thing of the past, nationalism is "dangerous" and that the future is the European Union. The majority of the political elite can't wait to see a "United States of Europe" emerge and says so openly at various occasions. This is to illustrate, that the perception of the country you live in largely depends on the indoctrination you received in your youth and the overall agenda. In most countries of Europe strong nationalistic tendencies are inconvenient for long term political goals, so the emphasis is on international cooperation and adherence to international law. In fact German politicians rarely state they "love their country" and would be crucified, if they described their country as "exceptional". The US instead has been a rogue actor for much of its existence, basically ignores international law, routinely blocks inconvenient UN resolutions, has supported some of the most oppressive regimes in recent history (South Africa, Honduras, Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia come to mind) has constantly waged war and bullied countries in Middle and South America. Restricted to foreign politics there is little America justifiably can be proud of in recent history and yet there is this whole quasi religion around the USA as a nation, "manifest destiny" etc., that apparently serves as a mental block even among many educated Americans to coolly and rationally evaluate the appalling record of most of their administrations in the past 50 years and maybe come to the conclusion that you should have persecuted many, who claimed they served your country and "loved it" a long time ago.
- MatthewWilkes 12y ago
  Is that Belgium, Russia, Japan or Germany? They all have legitimate claims to that title, having killed 5 million or more in time frames containing the 20th century.
  - orbifold 12y ago
    Edited the opening line to no longer claim it was "the largest genocide" and explicitly stated the country. Belgium is still very nationalistic, with big military parades on National Day, a military parade on National Day in Germany would be unthinkable.

by g0v 12y ago

dangerlibrary 12y ago

Try living in DC. It's a special kind of hell to live in the city where all this is taking place - where the local news IS what is going on in Congress (good and bad) - and not even be able to write to a voting representative in either house.

spacefight 12y ago
If you can - take your tax money elsewhere.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  Unfortunately, it is not possible to solve the problem that way. There are over 600,000 people living in this city - more than the population of Wyoming and Vermont. You wouldn't just tell everyone in Vermont to move to New Hampshire because the federal government can't get its act together. I was born and grew up in this city, as were many people who happen to fall on this side of the DC border.
  - spacefight 12y ago
    I agree that it's hard to relocate, that's why I stated "if you can". Some can and some do leave the places where they grew up for reasons of unhappiness with the policies of their gov.
    - dangerlibrary 12y ago
      That addresses my complaint, but doesn't solve the problem. There will always be residents of the District of Columbia - it's a city. Just like San Francisco or Chicago. The federal buildings make up a tiny fraction of the land area - the rest is private businesses and people's homes. The people who live in those homes should be allowed to vote.
      - spacefight 12y ago
        I fully agree that everyone should be allowed to vote. Solving the specific problem is hard. I just wanted to give a small hint, that if someone is not happy with the status quo, they might try to change it. Of course I have to add, that first it would make much more sense to try to change the local sentiment first - usually done by enganging in your locale community.
        Cyther606 12y ago
        Relocating your family to an alternate tax farm wouldn't accomplish much. The social contract has been severed. In the USCIA, it's no longer possible to engage with your local community without being cognizant of government spies. After all that happened with the Occupy movement, if the criminals who oversaw these sadistic acts of torture aren't brought to justice, and it instead comes down to grassroots activism, I for one wouldn't count on justice. And here's to hoping that I can at least continue to speak frankly on the internet. I certainly foresee my use of Tor creating problems for me down the road. It's why I'm such a big fan of Bitcoin, because that's the only viable way I'm aware of to defund these psychopaths.
        12y ago
Dylan16807 12y ago
There was one itty bitty spot in the entire middle band of this continent that people could move to and wouldn't be able to vote. So hundreds of thousands of people did. Still confuses me.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  I didn't move here, I was born here. I work here for a private company that has no relationship to the federal government. My home is here. The apathy about this issue is what confuses me - what harm would it do to allow DC residents to vote? What reason could you have to oppose DC citizens gaining the right to vote? The argument that federal government workers should be forbidden from voting is incredibly hollow - the vast majority of them reside outside the city. Also, this is tantamount to saying "Park Rangers in Idaho shouldn't be allowed to vote," a position I have never heard put forward.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming your ancestors. I'm not against letting DC vote to fix the problem at this point. But this situation is ridiculous. There was no reason to start a major city in the no-voting zone.
    - eru 12y ago
      Why? Not having a vote is not a major pain point for most people.
    - TheCoelacanth 12y ago
      The no-voting zone was created around two already existing cities (Georgetown and Alexandria).
  - jfoutz 12y ago
    Historically, i think it made some sense. now with instant communication, it seems hard for locals to influence congress unduly. Personally, I have no problem with adding DC as another state. Politically, it'll never happen (imho). why would any senator give up 2% of their power to add 2 more senators? There are probably many issues blocking, but on that one at least is a monster to overcome.
discardorama 12y ago
San Francisco is similar in a way. Nancy Pelosi keeps winning with massive margins, simply because of her name and the fact that she's part of the political machine here; and no one goes anywhere in SF politics without the backing of the machine. And the machine prevents viable challengers from coming forth. For all practical purposes, we don't _have_ a representative who will represent us; she just represents the rich and the powerful.
- samstave 12y ago
  And she is corrupt to the core, maybe almost as much as Feinstein who's husband's company Bechtel was one of the top profiteers in the wars.
  - cwp 12y ago
    And yet, Feinstein was the one who did battle with the CIA to get the torture report published. Establishing that crimes were committed is the first step toward prosecuting the criminals. I'd be the last to defend corruption, but it's important to point out that these things are relative. A republic can tolerate a little graft and profiteering. It cannot tolerate torture.
    - kabdib 12y ago
      Read about Feinstein and the crypto wars. She's a lying sack of garbage. Maybe, just maybe she had an attack of conscience about the CIA thing -- my guess is that she realized it would make it out anyway, and decided it would be better to look good on that account than defend something obviously illegal.
      - kabdib 12y ago
        I should add: And then work to have any repercussions be a wrist slap. "Don't do that again, okay?" and a wink. Just watch. Nothing will happen. I wonder who the next intelligence committee lapdog is going to be?
    - 12y ago

justcommenting 12y ago

we often believe we can't do anything about all the bad things we see in the world, but it's almost always necessary for people to first decide that things will change before they do. please join others and continue fighting for the democracy you want to live in and that you want your children to live in. it's going to take all of us.

innguest 12y ago
Empty hopes and empty feelings. I guess that's all Stockholm syndrome victims know to do. If this were France there would be manure inside the White House by now. But the new Americans are so uneducated (though highly schooled) that they can't even help but defend the same slogans (democracy!) that their overlords convinced them to believe in. Pathetic.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  Agents of the United States government committed these crimes. Other agents of the same manure-free government investigated and published their findings, in graphic detail. Now, we are in the process of getting more agents of the very same un-shit-covered government to act on that report. I fail to see how ruminant poop would improve the situation. Must be a French thing.
  - innguest 12y ago
    > I fail to see how ruminant poop would improve the situation. Contrast: Headline: Blah Blah Government Agents Blah Boring Blah Torture Blah More Big Words Blah Blah with: Headline: Protesting Citizens Dump Tons of Manure at White House for Blah Blah Government Agents Blah Boring... I can tell you from experience that the second one raises global awareness of the issue in a heartbeat and would put a lot more pressure onto slimy government accomplices to clean up their act. And that's how poop would help the situation. I'm sure you knew that and was just trying to be funny, though. EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot this great point: > [The US Government] committed these crimes > [The US Government] investigated and published their findings > [The US Government] are in the process of getting more agents [...] to act on that report This is hilarious. Corporations needs regulation because we don't trust the free market with all its different agents to regulate themselves, but you trust this one monolithic organization called the US Government to police and prosecute itself when the very crimes it committed are evidence enough that it can't? You should do stand-up.

fargolime 12y ago

A root cause of such problems is that people are free to hide behind their votes. Don't let them. Half the country effectively voted in favor of torture. That's how it was able to happen, and that's why it won't be prosecuted now. Cut those people out of your life wherever you can, especially if they are relatives. Everyone should have to pay a price for their nefarious beliefs.

scarmig 12y ago
A bit of your meaning is unclear, so I want to add something: If you are part of the half of Americans who voted for either of the two ruling parties, you voted for torture. The only people who haven't are those who don't vote, or who vote for (certain) third parties.
- fargolime 12y ago
  Not voting or voting for a third party is worse than voting for the lesser evil of the only 2 viable parties.
  - einhverfr 12y ago
    Discussing politics with people on the other side of the isle and finding common ground is frankly more important than voting today.
    - fargolime 12y ago
      One can do both, although making a worse choice at the polls usually goes hand-in-hand with a closed mind, in my experience.
      - einhverfr 12y ago
        My point is: the parties no longer represent us. We are lead to fight over wedge issues while the elites take everything. A vote doesn't matter by itself either. The only way a vote will have any impact is if you use it to add just a little sting to any political activity you do elsewhere. If your only political action is voting, you might as well stay home. The only real hope is if a large bipartisan alliance forms. That's more important than if we get Romney or Obama as President (two candidates who are mostly different in terms of party affiliation and skin color, but not in terms of approaches to governance).

harryf 12y ago

The biggest problem when your nation tortures people is you've trained people to torture; you've created institutionalized psychopaths. What do you do with them when their mission ends? Are they properly supported back into society or just dropped like most vets? Do the go home to become nightclub bouncers or security guards at your kids school? That's why we have to clean up this mess.

smeyer 12y ago
>The biggest problem when your nation tortures people is you've trained people to torture No, I disagree. I think the torturing itself and the moral failings it entails are a bigger problem than the (admittedly substantial) problem of reintegrating the individual torturers back into society.
- harryf 12y ago
  OK agreed. Perhaps that should have read "the best argument for fence sitters on why we need to clean this up is ..." because a disturbing percentage of Americans seem to believe torture was justified http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-po...
- lazyjones 12y ago
  Indeed - and from a purely practical standpoint: you've also created hundreds of millions, possibly billions of people who hate your country and perhaps feel that violence against its citizen, who voted for and continue to vote for such leaders, is justified.
mkramlich 12y ago
Another problem is that it can be used by others to justify torturing US soldiers, agents or officials that fall into their hands, if those others see the US as an enemy, and feel the US gov was conspiring or operating against them. That's not a world we want to live in. Torture is wrong, period. We're not the Good Guys because we wave a wand and say so. If we want to act like we have moral authority, and have credibility, and be able to show international leadership in the future again when there may be another major good-vs-evil rallying cause, requiring a coalition, then the US needs to maintain a certain image. But one based on facts, not on lies and contra-factual propaganda.

xorcist 12y ago

The normal answer would be to vote for a party that would stop this. This is democracy's answer. (I don't want to discuss much futher because of the downvotes, but the Five Why's can probably be utilized here.)

einhverfr 12y ago

I am an American expat living abroad. One thing that bugs me about this is that there is a shrill hyperpartisanship that underlies a lot of this discussion. Yes, we should be prosecuting torturers, their bosses, and those who aided and abetted this via existing CIA programs or via extraordinary rendition during the current and last two administrations. But Democrats won't sign on to something that will implicate Democratic party Presidents, nor will the GOP sign onto anything that will implicate a Republican president, no matter how despised he is by the Republican base. The result is a lawless government and a strict reminder that there is no such thing as a "government of laws." In the end, all governments are "governments of men."

MCRed 12y ago
As an norte american who was an expat for many years I agree. IT's amazing how different the perspective is when you get out of the US media bubble. Nobody, not CNN, not Fox, not MSNBC, etc, none of them really are critical of the US government. It's all whitewashed in a way that's hard to see when you're inside the bubble. And that whitewash is not just to defend the national government, but to defend the parties. I believe this is exactly the reason that the founders didn't want to have a party system. Some of their choices (like the original make up of the senate) I believe were specifically to prevent this. Further, the entire goal of having strong state governments and a weak federal government was to prevent these kinds of crimes. For the very reason that the federal government will not prosecute itself, a strong federal government is bad. (Principle agent problem.) Can you imagine if states were doing extraordinary rendition and torture? Highly unlikely. While at the same time, for a real war, there would be no problem fighting with a bunch of state militias banding together (and it would cost us a lot less... much of our problem is due to the adventurism of our permanent military-- hard to justify keeping it around if you aren't constantly finding wars to start, er, fight.)
- einhverfr 12y ago
  It isn't just defending the parties. It is defending the corporations who effectively control the parties. In short the media is an important part of the power structure of the US. Why I read The "American Conservative," "Mother Jones," and "The Nation" more than I read The New York Times.

samstave 12y ago

We need a tax holiday. Everyone should refuse to pay taxes unless we are actually represented.

rayiner 12y ago

Painting this as a "government versus citizens" situation is simple minded. Latest polls show support for the CIA methods by 2:1 margin after the Senate Report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-po.... I'm not a big fan of Obama, but he's gotten an unfair shake on the national security front. The fact is that the broader electorate is indifferent about drone strikes and enhanced interrogation, but would pillory him if a terrorist attack happened "on his watch." If your theory of the world depends on Obama being duplicitous and going against the will of the people to do these things he promised he wouldn't do, I submit that it's not just republicans that may fairly be accused of ignoring reality when it comes to politics. The issue isn't why won't the government do what we want it to do. The issue is: why do we still want revenge after 14 years, after Iraq and after Afghanistan?

canjobear 12y ago
The article is about prosecuting people not just because of the torture was depraved but also because it was illegal. The Senate report finds that the CIA knew its actions were illegal and acted to cover them up. The fact that the majority of the populace approves of an illegal action in polls should not make the perpetrators less worthy of prosecution.
- rayiner 12y ago
  If people broke laws they should be prosecuted. But let's describe the situation honestly: not "why does the government defy the people and not prosecute?" But "why doesn't the government defy the people and prosecute?"
  - sitkack 12y ago
    One I don't support your claim that people are in support of torture. Two if they do support it, _they_ also need to see bringing the participants of torture to justice. Popular polls replacing laws? What country is this?

InclinedPlane 12y ago

Run. For. Office. It's sad that this isn't seen as an option anymore, but it should be. There are tons of offices out there that people have a reasonable chance at attaining and can kick start a political career. Not everyone will do a good job and not everyone should do it, but too many people don't even consider it as an option. The result is that the people in office tend to be people who are driven by ambition, lust for power, or desire for fame, precisely the least suitable people for office, with abundantly visible results.

orbifold 12y ago

To someone from a nation responsible for a large genocide in the 20th century and at least one world war, Germany, the notion that you could "love your country" has only become non controversial again, recently. For example, flags are really only displayed by the population for major sport events, like the world cup and not for National Day. In fact a major part of political indoctrination in school was that the idea of the nation state is largely a thing of the past, nationalism is "dangerous" and that the future is the European Union. The majority of the political elite can't wait to see a "United States of Europe" emerge and says so openly at various occasions. This is to illustrate, that the perception of the country you live in largely depends on the indoctrination you received in your youth and the overall agenda. In most countries of Europe strong nationalistic tendencies are inconvenient for long term political goals, so the emphasis is on international cooperation and adherence to international law. In fact German politicians rarely state they "love their country" and would be crucified, if they described their country as "exceptional". The US instead has been a rogue actor for much of its existence, basically ignores international law, routinely blocks inconvenient UN resolutions, has supported some of the most oppressive regimes in recent history (South Africa, Honduras, Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia come to mind) has constantly waged war and bullied countries in Middle and South America. Restricted to foreign politics there is little America justifiably can be proud of in recent history and yet there is this whole quasi religion around the USA as a nation, "manifest destiny" etc., that apparently serves as a mental block even among many educated Americans to coolly and rationally evaluate the appalling record of most of their administrations in the past 50 years and maybe come to the conclusion that you should have persecuted many, who claimed they served your country and "loved it" a long time ago.

MatthewWilkes 12y ago
Is that Belgium, Russia, Japan or Germany? They all have legitimate claims to that title, having killed 5 million or more in time frames containing the 20th century.
- orbifold 12y ago
  Edited the opening line to no longer claim it was "the largest genocide" and explicitly stated the country. Belgium is still very nationalistic, with big military parades on National Day, a military parade on National Day in Germany would be unthinkable.