« | 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

    • wearytruth on Stoke and Copeland: "Corbyn’s stated mission in leading Labour is to offer a break with the past and create an economy for the many, not the few." That was MY stated...
    • Ouessante on Stoke and Copeland: Stoke: Cons+UKIP 49.1%, Lab 37.1%. Saved only by a split vote. Hardly cause for Lab rejoicing I think. They should be very worried.
    • streetsj on Stoke and Copeland: As in all votes there are a multitude of reasons why people vote as they do but it seems unlikely that Nuttall's contribution was anything other than ...
    • piffin on Stoke and Copeland: That Labour could beat off Ukip's anti-immigrant challenge in Stoke but lose to the Tories in Copeland suggests the latter result was informed by the ...
    • suetonius on Remembering Seymour Papert: Oh my, flashback inducing. I remember being an undergraduate right when the book came out, physics student at the time. Several of my professors wer...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

Advertisement Advertisement