[rayiner]

Painting this as a "government versus citizens" situation is simple minded. Latest polls show support for the CIA methods by 2:1 margin after the Senate Report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-po....

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but he's gotten an unfair shake on the national security front. The fact is that the broader electorate is indifferent about drone strikes and enhanced interrogation, but would pillory him if a terrorist attack happened "on his watch." If your theory of the world depends on Obama being duplicitous and going against the will of the people to do these things he promised he wouldn't do, I submit that it's not just republicans that may fairly be accused of ignoring reality when it comes to politics.

The issue isn't why won't the government do what we want it to do. The issue is: why do we still want revenge after 14 years, after Iraq and after Afghanistan?

[canjobear]

The article is about prosecuting people not just because of the torture was depraved but also because it was illegal. The Senate report finds that the CIA knew its actions were illegal and acted to cover them up. The fact that the majority of the populace approves of an illegal action in polls should not make the perpetrators less worthy of prosecution.

[rayiner]

If people broke laws they should be prosecuted. But let's describe the situation honestly: not "why does the government defy the people and not prosecute?" But "why doesn't the government defy the people and prosecute?"

[rtpg]

This is kind of an interesting point that I feel has come up a lot in Obama's presidency in particular. Why can the executive choose not to prosecute crimes?

This comes up in another point, which is marijuana legalisation. Under federal law, that stuff is still illegal, yet we've chosen not to prosecute. I'm still not sure of how the legality of the non-prosecution works out

[bediger4000]

That's a very good question, and in simple terms, one could say "lack of leadership". Isn't the very point of having a representative government to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority? That is, the elected representatives need to do ethical things, rather than just be driven by polling, or special interests.

[dragonwriter]

> Isn't the very point of having a representative government to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority?

No, that's the point of limited government in an otherwise democratic system.

The point of representative democratic government is to institute popular sovereignty while allowing most citizens to do something other than full-time government oversight.

[sitkack]

One I don't support your claim that people are in support of torture. Two if they do support it, _they_ also need to see bringing the participants of torture to justice. Popular polls replacing laws? What country is this?

[samstave]

An interpolating poll is simply not acceptable when it comes to this. I am in no way going to accept that 2:1 in support of torture is a true number unless every single person asked that question were shown videos of the actual torture conducted by US military in an IMAX theatre.

Show me anal-rape-feeding on the big screen and ask me if I support it.

[harryh]

So support for say, abortion, isn't real unless you show someone a dead fetus before asking them their position?

[samstave]

Do he have "Planned torture clinics" where analogous said torture to one single gender may occur, where said gender may pay for said torture, then released.

Your analogy is literally brain dead.

[harryh]

Why is it brain dead? I was merely pointing out that the framing of a question to the public can dramatically influence the results, and I wanted clarification from you about what sort of framing you think is appropriate for different issues.

[samstave]

Abortion may be an ugly practice, but it is a voluntary individual choice that a person chooses for themselves, while it is controversial given that you are indeed killing your unborn baby - I don't think it is comparable to forced torture on other by sponsored governmental agents. Further, abortion is sought out and paid for by one gender of the population.

They are both moral issues, but other than that, they don't have much in common.

However, I will agree that if you made all people watch a video of an abortion, it would likely influence their opinion on it - but we don't cmsend the Cia all over the globe forcing abortions on people. Or kidnap people and send them to forced abortion clinics in Hungary.

[harryh]

People who are against abortion(1) aren't against them because they are forced on the mother but because they are forced on the fetus which they see as deserving of legal protection.

1. To be clear I don't count myself as part of this group.

[lstyls]

> 'The fact is that the broader electorate is indifferent about drone strikes and enhanced interrogation, but would pillory him if a terrorist attack happened "on his watch."'

Your position begs the question of whether the drone policy is actually effective at reducing the risk of terror attacks. Many if not most critics of Obama's policy argue that they are in fact counterproductive in their stated mission.