On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:16:24 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Although on the record of opposing it (and outlawing it) he is still
struggling with the use of torture question. It's obvious. He's still
reading specific past rationales of it's use or not by other world leaders.
At one point he was specifically asked if he would authorize torture if he
knew a major attack on the US was imminent and the torture of someone would
provide the information required to advert the attack. His answer was
complex. The first words out of his mouth was that "First of all, I will
do anything required to protect the people of the USA". (paraphrased) But
then he went on to say that the USA needs to maintain a moral high ground
and that options other than torture are available.

But. He did *not* rule torture out. His acknowledged first priority is to
protect the USA and it's people, and he will do "anything required" to
accomplish that. Interesting.

It's a tough one, and again he is demonstrating a level of understanding and
wisdom that only comes with having the reigns of responsibility in one's two
hands. He's beginning to realize that now *he* is the decider, not the
polls, media comments, Olbermann and other armchair generals.

It's not tough to anybody who thinks clearly.
Basically, should the President be allowed to sanction torturing you,
your wife, your daughter, your son?
Can he delegate the decision to Nancy Pelosi?
That's what could happen if you allow the government to torture.
The "enemies of the state" don't have to be ragheads.
Anybody can be pulled off the street by the gov.
The government has no right to torture.
I don't trust them.
Subversion of the Constitution.
Obama was walking a tightrope, and fell on his ass.
The lame ass "ticking time bomb" strikes again.
Never happened. Never. TV fantasy.
I join Cheney in demanding the release of the "torture
transcriptions."
Cocksucking gov torturers already destroyed the videotapes.
Wonder why?

--Vic