« | 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

    • Harry Stopes on Trump, #takeaknee and American History: The response to James McClean, a West Brom player from Derry who refuses to wear the poppy on his shirt during October/ November (like the parading of...
    • Thomas Jones on Glen Newey 1961-2017: A message from Glen Newey's family: We are asking for contributions from Glen’s friends, colleagues and students around the world in the hope of ...
    • shosha shuldeiner on The Conventional Mr Hefner: I think the answer to your query as to why has the adjective 'conventional' been attached to Mr. Hefner's description, lies in the the observation of ...
    • Jeremy Bernstein on The Conventional Mr Hefner: I had one encounter with Playboy. I had written a profile of Stanley Kubrick for the New Yorker that centered on chess. I was visiting Oxford and was ...
    • RobotBoy on ‘This Bankrupt Island’: Around five million Puerto Ricans (and those of PR descent) live on the U.S. mainland - more than on the island. There are over 700,000 Puerto Ricans ...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement