« | Home | »

Line of Least Resistance

Tags: |

How far can an American president sink below the line of least resistance? Andrew Sullivan answers this question in a blogpost about Guantánamo. That Obama has failed to address the breaking apart of human beings by Americans on the base makes him the inheritor of the Texan legacy on torture: Barack W. Obama, second president of Gitmo. ‘To his eternal shame’, as Sullivan remarks.

Comments on “Line of Least Resistance”

  1. Bob Beck says:

    In the event, eternity lasted only 24 hours — at least, to those who might credit “enhanced interrogation” at Guantanamo for the information that led to the “taking out” of Bin Laden.

    And are even liberal [sic] critics of Obama now downplaying their opposition to Guantanamo? I can’t bear to look.

  2. Bob Beck says:

    Not well written, I’ll grant. OK, Take Two:

    I just wonder if Obama’s critics — not the Republicans or birthers, I mean, but the more or less rational critics who perhaps supported or continue to support him, but have been bitterly opposed to Guantanamo staying open — will now go silent on that subject, or mill around sheepishly. Many such supporters have acted opportunistically before, or rationalized some dreadful decisions of Obama’s.

    The “[sic]” after “liberals” just indicates my doubts about how liberal some such supporters really are. Among the other things they’ve rationalized have been trials by military commission, indefinite detention without trial, the continuation of Bush-era levels of government secrecy, and so on.

    • Joe Morison says:

      Got you, and it’s sound wondering. Obviously, torture sometimes yields useful information; in this case it led to a propaganda coup for the US. But comparing that to the propaganda disaster which was the US coming to be seen as a country that approves the use of torture is as comparing a molehill to a deep sea trench.

      • Bob Beck says:

        Though according to the New York Times — and despite Republican spin — torture in this case actually produced no useful intelligence. The investigators were able to get somewhere only by assuming the two prisoners involved were not telling the truth under torture. Conversely, their useful info came from a “normal” interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • bggilmore on Cleveland, Day Two: I cruised through Atlantic City, New Jersey recently. Trump has some dead casinos there. He doesn't own them and yet his name is still on the building...
    • Timothy Rogers on Cleveland, Day Three: The question isn't her lying (she's an amateur compared to Trump on this front), but whether or not she's more suitable (and less dangerous) than Trum...
    • Mickstick on Yes, it was Blair’s fault: I attended a dinner at the National Gallery, Washington DC in February 2003. I was placed next to Tony Brenton, at that point the acting British Amba...
    • murack@wanadoo.fr on Keep Corbyn!: I am fully in agreement with many of the policies proposed by Corbyn, but over the referendum and more generally in his dealings with the PLP he has s...
    • tony_gee on Keep Corbyn!: It wasn't a party under Blairites that managed to finish third behind the Tories in the last Scottish election though. Corbyn may be a nice guy (al...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement