« | 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

    • martyn94 on Money for nothing?: i suspect that I'm possibly the only person here who has actually tried to do the sums for UBI in anything approaching the real world. The late Ralph ...
    • IPFreely on Lesvos Burning: Al Jazeera seems to be the only TV programme that regularly reports on the situation and also gives reports on the numbers of refugees crossing by boa...
    • bevin on Cameron Quits Again: "Taking the state on a joy ride and crashing it,.." The EU was doomed from the beginning. It is very difficult to trick people into believing that ne...
    • Vance Maverick on Missionaries in a Lift: Well, your eternal salvation is pretty undeniably more important than your vote for the next President. Or it would be, if there were agreement on how...
    • Bob Beck on Up the Commonwealth: Boris Johnson's use of "piccaninnies" -- otherwise a tolerably obscure word these days, I'd have thought -- suggests that he shares Farage's adulation...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement