I constantly hear on here about how Bush is a war criminal. I actually agree, Bush clearly committed war crimes again and again. However what I have never heard or seen a thread on is how Obama is also a war criminal. The best excuse that the more adamant Obama supporters on these boards have managed is that he inherited the situation from Bush. Now lets do a hypothetical for a moment. I hate to bring up the Nazis in an argument (Godwin's law and all) but they are just the most obvious example of war crimes. Imagine that Hitler died early and someone else took over power. Imagine that that person knew all about the Holocaust and other war crimes being committed by the Nazis. Now imagine that he not only continued, but expanded those programs. Would we say he was not a war criminal because he didn't invent them himself? Of course not. It's an absurd argument that ignores what a war criminal is. Someone who commits war crimes. Here is a summary from the website warcriminalswatch.org

Quote: Obama war crimes under definitions set forth above

Obama has expanded Bush’s “War on Terror” to a “Global Battlefield” where suspected terrorists anywhere can be subjected to “targeted killings” by drone strikes without charge or trial. This has happened not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and possibly Mali. The “collateral damage” from these strikes has killed large numbers of women and children as well as young men of military age whom the Obama administration arbitrarily counts as combatants.

Several leaders accused of Bush-era war crimes remained in the Obama administration – for example, Stanley McChrystal, Robert Gates, David Petraeus and Jonathan Fredman, and of course John O. Brennan – now head of the CIA. All have been involved in military and domestic "national security" policy. In April 2012 Brennan was the first Obama administration official to publicly acknowledge the CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan and elsewhere. In his speech at the Wilson Center, he argued for the legality, morality and effectiveness of the program. In 2011/2012 he also helped to codify the process, under the aegis of the Disposition Matrix database by which people outside of war zones are put on the list of drone targets. The reorganization helped "concentrate power" over the process inside the White House administration. The war in Afghanistan was expanded during Obama’s first administration. Military strategy was then under the direction of Gen. David Petraeus, an expert in counterinsurgency. The war continues with fewer US troops and unknown numbers of contractors.

Withdrawal from Iraq has faded into the future. When and if the troops do go, thousands of private military contractors remain. Meanwhile the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, with the increasing threat of a full-scale civil war.

Despite Obama’s promises, Guantánamo still has not been closed. It should be noted that 86 of the remaining prisoners have already been cleared for release by the Guantánamo Review Task Force, a group of 60 officials and lawyers from government departments and intelligence agencies who reviewed all the Guantánamo cases in 2009. Many of the prisoners have remained in detention because they are Yemenis. By order of Obama all the remaining 166 prisoners are now held in “indefinite detention” – without charge or trial. Most of the men have been there for 10 or 11 years.

In 2012, a harsher military administration was imposed at Guantánamo. Despairing of their release, the prisoners have staged a prolonged hunger strike. Unless action is taken soon (as June 2013) the strike will result in prisoner deaths.

An unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers or "black sites" around the world are not allowed access to courts or lawyers or even knowledge of the charges or evidence against them.

Detainees are still enduring prolonged isolation, sleep, sensory deprivation and force-feeding. These techniques cause extreme mental anguish and permanent physical damage and are not permitted under international law. In other words, the US still engages in torture.

Solitary confinement has also taken place on US soil without trial or conviction. Two examples: first, Syed Fahad Hashmi, a Muslim-American student, was held for two and a half years in downtown Manhattan under Special Administrative Measures (SAMS) and subsequently in Colorado under the same conditions after receiving a sentence of 25 years based on a (plea-bargained) informant’s testimony. Second, Bradley Manning, accused of providing material to WikiLeaks, was held in solitary confinement from late May 2010 until April 2011. Even inside his cell, his activities were heavily restricted: banned from exercising, under constant surveillance and denied many of the most basic attributes of civilized imprisonment, including a pillow or sheets for his bed. He was forced to strip naked for inspections and, for the one hour per day when he was freed from isolation, he was barred from accessing any news or current events programs. Bradley Manning’s trial is currently under way with access by news media severely restricted by the military.

No constraints by courts or Congress have been placed on the Obama administration’s war crimes. Despite Obama’s declaration of transparency in government, a wall of secrecy shrouds the conduct of wars, including drone war and covert operations. Meanwhile former Bush officials have new roles in society: professor, lawyer, corporate manager, lecturer on the lucrative speaker circuit and even Obama administration officials. Only the public can demand that these criminal policies stop now! We have an obligation not only to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity after they occur but to put an end to the shameful policies which allow them to continue.

#bothsidesdo

#Obamaisnotliberalenough

When you lock Bush and Cheney up then you can go after Obama.

(December 29, 2014 at 8:54 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I constantly hear on here about how Bush is a war criminal. I actually agree, Bush clearly committed war crimes again and again. However what I have never heard or seen a thread on is how Obama is also a war criminal.

I've posted this many times.

Let me do it one more time just to be clear.

Obama has been a phenomena disappointment. He's not a liberal. He's not a progressive. He's not my man.

I support him only because he's better than the GOP.

...and speaking of both sides don't.

Please take three minutes of your time to watch the crazy on parade, the GOP's antics during the last year.

When you're done, feel free to try to explain to me why liberals are "just as bad". Use actual facts in your argument.

The biggest complaints I hear about Obama from progressives all come down to this: he isn't cleaning up Dubya's mess fast enough. Bush started unnecessary wars, Obama isn't ending them fast enough. Bush has trampled our civil liberties, Obama isn't fixing those. Bush demolished our economy, Obama hasn't fixed it yet. The list is endless. But if you consider the attitude congress has had towards Obama, I'm honestly a little surprised he's been able to get anything done with his time in office. I mean, Bush spent a lot of time in office with a majority in both houses of congress and even the democrats were reasonable enough that they weren't going to blindly filibuster anything he supports. Obama doesn't get that luxury.

So?
War crimes are only prosecuted by the winners.

Even then, generally the winners don't want to establish prosecution as a precedent and so let perpetrators escape.

You have to win first to make any of this stick.
Good luck there. Psychopaths have some significant competitive advantages because they do not share the same limitations as those of us better socialized.

(December 29, 2014 at 10:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: When you lock Bush and Cheney up then you can go after Obama.

Not until bush and Cheney have been rectally hydrated.

I don't give a fuck what's done to them once they are locked up. After all, Cheney insists it isn't torture.

I'm calling the following the Watkins Effect.

Back in the late 80s, President Reagan appointed a commission to look into the nation's AIDS crisis (finally) and to craft a response/policy to follow into the future to combat the epidemic.

A long time navy admiral, Watkins, wound up in charge of the commission. The commission was very controversial, just having a gay member or gay friendly members put the conservative and religious fundies into orbit. Gay activists feared (rightly in my view) draconian (if not worse) and ineffective measures to combat the disease would result, and in that political climate, result in a terrible civil rights debacle for the entire community and a needless continuation and worsening of an ongoing catastrophic medical crisis.

To his credit, Watkins, and the committee kept open minds about the AIDS problem, got in the trenches, had good experts testify, and they produced sensible policies that were pretty much ignored by the Reagan administration (but gained traction nevertheless in Congress and other places).

In my view, the results of the commission were not expected by the administration since they viewed the problem through conservative political prisms. Reagan didn't feel the need to directly lead Watkins to any preferred conclusion, the selection process that lit on Watkins was viewed as a sufficient guarantee to get the desired outcome, one that conformed to conservative political and Moral Majority dogma.


This 'effect' if you will, of sending forth presumed allies, unknowingly flawed with open minds and reasonable attitudes that result in findings contrary to expectations, I call the Watkins Effect.


I think some of Obama's perceived fuck ups, like failing to close Gitmo in a timely fashion might be indicative of something akin to the Watkins Effect. Now that the decision is in his lap, and with access to FAR more information than he had on the campaign trail, the correct course of action doesn't jibe with the preconceived notions very well.

And note, while the Watkins Effect occurred under a conservative president, that is irrelevant. Ideologues of any stripe can get their comeuppance from those damn pesky inconvenient facts.

And then, in view of this, criticism of Obama on the failure to timely close Gitmo from HIS BASE is really crass. Any of the critics, if placed in Obama's position, are going to find reality leading them to the same place it led Obama on the timing of that decision.