Indeed. Shepard's "objectivity" seems quite subjective. It's too bad no one can remind her that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a political construct, and torture is merely a description.

Thanks for the link.

I listened and it was pretty much a fluff piece. "Oh, Alicia, look at how the commenters are abusing you and don't understand how noble you and NPR are."

I'm not as good as some of the other posers here, but I couldn't keep my mouth shut over there.

link at sig

The one claim Republicans can make that resonates with the average voter is that they prevented a terrorist attack on American soil for

Nine months. FIFY.

I argue that Obama's policy is necessary, and the factor of his inheritance from George W. Bush make it exist in the legal grey-zone called "extenuating circumstances" that every lawyer invokes to explain that the law does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the real world.

And yet Obama does not invoke that.

Don't you wonder why he doesn't?

Posters not posers.

Sorry all.

What is so frustrating is that I get the feeling that the fact that this torture thingy won't go away when it's told to, is the whole reason that the Obama administration seems to be moving from dismissing the issue to being obsessed with crushing it, at the expense of the corruption of our courts, our democracy, our military, and everything else.

That thought has crossed my mind more than once. Someone, many of Glenn's threads back either posited, or cited someone else who posited, that Obama wouldn't release the next round of photos (or, investigation results) until the torture "debate" died down. At which point I thought, if true, I'm willing to shut up.... briefly, very briefly.

Your muse reminds me of a story element in Anna and the King of Siam:

Anna runs to the King and begs his help, but he's very insulted that Anna even knows about what happened -- it's a private matter as well as something that harms his dignity. Anna unwisely loses her temper and tells the king he has no heart and that he's a barbarian. Protesting her innocence and Phra Palat's, Tuptim is burned at the stake and he with her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_and_the_King_of_Siam_(film)

It's not going to go away. No matter how much Obama obsesses or squashes. This is one of these ugly family 'secrets' that will never really die. At best, he may only be able to quash it for his own presidency. But it will come back. And, each time it comes back, it will come back in a more harmful form. Even more will be at stake in subsequent iterations. That's just the way these things go.

I agree this much with the argument that Obama's motivations matter: deciphering the underlying causes of particular positions taken might help sharpen our understanding of the actions most likely to alter his behavior.

For those of you who feel strongly about this, an example tying cause to recommended response would be nice.

On the other hand, does it really need to be that complicated?

Obama's a politician. Remembering his job description should give savvy people - that's most of UT's readers and posters - a good idea of the kinds of actions likely to influence future outcomes.

Wow, not the brightest bulb on the porch, is she.

On a related note, Huffpo ran a piece yesterday, posted at 9PM (EST, presumably) about the very subject of this article.

Some foamer in comments said something like 'YOU LIBRULS ARE SUCH HYPOCRITES IF BUSH DID THIS THERE WOULDBE 1,500 COMMENTS AND THERS ONLY 49!!! LOL"

In fact, there were about 140, most of them critical of the WH, by the time I that read it last evening. This AM there were just short of 1,900 comments. The article has since been yanked, to my surprise.

... attacks on our soil tend to boost support for the President rather than erode it.
____________________________

Without reaching the issue of whether walfisch is entirely correct in attributing this motive to Obama, IMO there's an "all things being equal" aspect to your assertion.

I agree that the trauma of an act of terrorism generally provokes an instinctive, visceral support for the Warlord/Protector/Daddy-- especially from fearful, anxious, and unsophisticated yahoos.

Further, I expect that the initial response from the political elite and corporate media would be to rally 'round the standard-bearer; even Obama's political opponents would reflexively genuflect, and piously proclaim that this is a time for Unity and Resolve, etc.

But I suggest that you're too readily discounting the condition walfisch specified, i.e. that the deed(s) was committed by one (or more) of the Worst of the Worst released by the Obama maladministration.

My prediction is that it wouldn't be very long after the smoke cleared for Obama opponents and detractors to turn the event to their political advantage-- it would make the "Willie Horton" attack insignificant in comparison.

It might begin in a cautious and respectful way, but surely you can't expect amoral and ruthlessly opportunistic politicians to forego expressing a rap as loaded as "Obama freed a Terrorist and innocent Amerikans died" for political advantage.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a previous terrorist act in which the president, rightly or wrongly, risked being directly implicated as an enabler of the event. (From a conventional perspective, that is.)

The media infotainwhores would certainly be on this juicy question like a parched baboon devouring a watermelon.

Walfisch's point has merit.

Now you get it. If you cede to the president the power to violate the law as he sees fit, there is, for practical purposes, "no law" at the highest level of government. For those whose faith in Obama is limitless and whose vision does not extend past the end of his presidency, that is hunky-dory. For others, not so much.

And yet Obama does not invoke that.

Don't you wonder why he doesn't?

His dates of application for this exemption to legal due process ended at January 22nd, 2009 when he was attempting to pass Graham-Lieberman.

If that doesn't still apply (and it might not) then I agree with you that this goes too far.

To make a legal exemption, an already highly problematic proposition, it should only be done to deal with a very specific crisis (the Bush torture fiasco). If Obama tries to hold this power for anyone he feels like, it can and should be vigorously criticized as an abuse of power.