Obama and torture

So Bush broke all the conventions and rules he wanted in order to have the pleasure of torturing innocent muslims in secret camps, and invaded one country after another just to have something to spend money on in typical texan style.

So what's changed since Obama took over? He did promise you change, right? He's black, right? That's gotta be a long way from being a texan.

So from day one (and I'm not exaggerating here) Amnesty has been wanting to talk to him about closing down the bases and ending the torture.

Did he close down the bases? Yes, there is now plans to close them down. It's called "relocation". Once a secret base is discovered, its purpose of being secret has failed, so it is officially closed, and open anew in another secret location.

Did he end the torture? No. The torture still continues in these bases, so there's no sign of Obama disapproving of this other than the occational lipservice here and there.

Has been allowed those responsible for the torture to stand trial? NO! When it comes to torture, human rights organisations make it very clear that torture is a crime for EVERYONE involved, from the guy who actually does it, all the way to the one who gave the order. All of these are meant to be put on trial, so unless someone holds a gun to your head, it is your duty toward the human race to refuse to obey your commanders, or else you are yourself commiting a war crime. ...but apparently Obama feels enough for these guys to give them a presidential pardon.

Finally, did Obama end the invasion in the middle east, you know the one that has let the world know just how badguy the US of A is? No, he's planning to send troops there as we speak.

So I guess we've learned something from this: It doesn't matter if you're black or white.

Unfortunately, this isn't something that we can have immediate action on and call it justice in any shape, form, or fashion.

Before anybody can do anything, investigation must be done so we know the exact extent and the exact details of what happened, both with and without sanction.

Unfortunately, especially with the materials released in recent days, it looks like this is going to take awhile, as a lot of shit was going on that has to be uncovered.  However, I do think that inevitably some noticeable action will be taken on this.

Now, we are faced with the challenge of "Nuremburg vs. Stanley Milgram experiment".  Nuremburg set the precedent of punishing everybody, even if they were just following orders, however the Stanley Milgram experiment clearly demonstrated that it is human nature to do what you are told by an authority figure, even if you personally object to it. 

If we follow the Nuremburg precedent and prosecute everybody, then we send the message to our intelligence community that you can be arrested for following orders that you have been told are legal, which I think would be a crushing blow to the functionality of said community.

Meanwhile, if we follow the Milgram precedent and only go for the top, then the grunts have no interest in standing up for what's right because their jobs are secure as long as they continue following orders.

There isn't a right answer to this one folks, it's gonna be interesting to watch it unfold.