The Barbershop has re-located

The proprietor has moved the shop to ChicagoNow, a Chicago Tribune site that showcases some of the best bloggers in the Chicago area. You can logo on to the Barbershop home page here. The ChicagoNow home page is here.

You'll still be able to post comments with the same ease as in this location. The proprietor also will keep this web site alive if you wish to review old posts.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Obama Open to Prosecution of Officials Who Cleared Interrogation Tactics

This defies all rational thinking. Never in our nation's history has one administration demonstrated such animus to a preceding one. Yes, Thomas Jefferson, for example, took the national on an entirely different path than his predecessor, John Adams, but as far as I am aware, there was never an effort to prosecute anyone in the Adams administration or Adams himself (which is the logical extension of what Obama is suggesting).

This is insanity. Would this set a precedent for the next president to prosecute someone in the Obama administration (or Obama himself) for their actions while in office? Obama needs to think long and hard about this.


Anonymous said...

My latest understanding is that the President has said "no" to prosecutions, but Eric Holder has not ruled it out. If the President has changed that position, he is on the right side of the issue now.

Many Americans, as does much of the free and not-so-free world, believe that the Bush administration committed war crimes. If any or some of what we hear in the media is true (e.g., Cheney's secret assassination squad), there is no doubt. However, the torture issue is not so clear. Someone, probably a special prosecutor, needs to examine that. Our country is under a moral imperative to know if we tortured. If so, we are under a moral and legal obligation to prosecute those involved. If the Obama administration commits war crimes, it should also be prosecuted.

It's that simple.

Dennis Byrne... said...

Your understanding is outdated.Here's another news story:,0,5725212.story

Anonymous said...

This is very troubling; Bush and Congress had input into the decisions as to what constituted "torture" and what didn't. Do we like to have to do nasty things to outright terrorists? No, but some physical intimidation (and the fear of more to follow, which has now been removed by dangerous Obama telling the world our techniques and limits) has resulted in preventing the deaths of people in Los Angeles and who knows where else. Who is the President elected to protect? Americans, that's who. Obama has chosen to be a friend to our enemies and potentially sacrifice Americans. When is the public going to wake up to the horror of this administration?

We now learn that $20 million will be spent to import and support thousands of Gaza Palestinians. Why do we want these people in our country when they are Hamas supporters or members? We are importing and paying for people who are likely to attack us someday. It's insane.


Anonymous said...

I understand my information was a little out of date, but I originally said that if the President had changed his mind, he finally got it right.

And Margaret, as for torture saving lives, there is absolutely no proof of that. Even if it did, the end doesn't always justify the means. It's true in domestic police interrogation and techniques, just like it is in international. Torture is a moral wrong and should not be tolerated by the American people. It is also a violation of international and our own laws, and should be prosecuted. Just because some don't follow the rules doesn't mean we should abandon our principles. You'd be singing a different tune if your son was in a foreign prison being waterboarded. We need to maintain our moral standing in the world, a standing that Bush and Cheney ruined over eight years of ignoring all moral principles we stand for, here and abroad.

Anonymous said...

The United States of America does not torture. John McCain said there really no way around it. We
signed agreements and treaties. "It is not what we are about".
If these agreements and treaties are outdated or not revelant in some way we should legally get out of them. Because it is inconvenient not to torture is not the issue. Because torture works is not the issue. The issue is who are we. Just what do we stand for?
Ever think maybe Obama is out for justice and not Bush and Cheney?
Is Nuremberg outdated?

Anonymous said...