Obama's first mistake?

Did Obama make his first mistake by giving amnesty to the CIA agents who used torture with prisoners, by saying that it was “the law under Bush?”
Torture was in violation of International Law. Do we use International Law when it’s convenient and disregard it when it doesn’t serve our purpose?
With this logic, any country could say that the atrocities they committed were the law of the land (their dictator).

I would agree with Obama in granting amnesty, provided that Bush would then be charged with the violation.

What a job! We are lucky when people with integrity are willing to take it on. this man, it seems to me, has a lot of that.

Ann

The torture issue is a sad one. I had gotten some documents a while back from the National Security Archives about the torture. Many good people left Bush's cabinet. For some it was tied to the torture issue.

I think more will come out on this, and hopefully some will be charged.

Carol

I believe torture is always wrong. Among other things, it makes it more likely to happen to your own soldiers when captured.
As for the CIA men and Obama, that "I was just following orders" alibi was shot down at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals. But as Don pointed out, soldiers are sometimes given orders they don't believe in. I didn't like it when a sergeant ordered us to loot French houses and give everything to him. I didn't like it after the war when we had to raid houses of former German soldiers looking for American cigarettes or candy bars. Had any of it involved torture I would have refused. I think it is inexcusable. Had Obama ordered the CIA men tried, the nuts would have come screaming out of the woodwork.

Don, I understand what you're saying. Following orders is what basic training teaches and the consequences for disobeying are hammered into you. However, as Dick pointed out, there is a line that everyone has where the conscious says, "It's wrong." For a young person, taking a stand against authority is not something most can or will do. For adults, like the CIA, these men know what they're doing. They could simply refuse to participate. But as always, the person issuing the orders, the person where "the buck stops here," should be held responsible.
We are not an isolated nation and we want to be the leader. If we don't comply with international law, why should anyone else?
Obama has lots of problems to deal with caused by Bush, however he will be judged on the decisions he makes. He doesn't have an "undo" button to wash away the problems of the past. The "law" should be enforced. If the law is wrong, it should be changed. So what happens to those operating under the "bad" law? That's the dilemma.

His first mistake was making Hillary Clinton Sec. of State. It will come back to haunt him, the Dem party, and pretty much everybody.

Regarding the torture, didn't Nuremburg kind of determine that "I was just following orders" is no defense?

The government took the escape and evasion school manual and said that could be the rules for torture. My husband went to a similar school in 1961. There the participants were part of a mock prisoner of war camp for several days where they were tortured. (Every squadron on the base had to send someone to this school and my husband was junior in his squadron, so he was given the privilege. No one volunteered.) They put the participants in freezing pools, wrapped them in canvas, put them in small boxes.

But, first the participants were trained in how to survive torture as prisoners, and these people doing the torture were not the enemy, although they appeared to be so.

So the government rationalized that since this was done to our soldiers in our training program, it could be done on the prisoners and was not considered torture. Perhaps the participants in that training program have a different opinion.

Carol

Some people even claim that the United States should not be subject to international law, but should be above it. I think the United States should be subject to international law and so should all other countries. If there has been a violation of international law that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, then those who perpertrated the violation should be appropriately punished.

You're right Gordon, and that's part of the problem.
The US refused to sign on to the international court of justice, yet supports it when it brings others to task. No American has ever been brought to task since we refuse to acknowledge international law against an American citizen. A double standard if I ever saw one, but it will catch up with us. The respect we had in the world was lost with the Bush administration. Obama is doing his best to repair it, but if he falls into the same trap, i.e., with the amnesty issue, we're going down the same road again.
Lin and Dick referred to the Nuremberg trials. Those brought to justice couldn't claim that they were following orders. They were convicted.
Our "get out of jail free" card is going to backfire. When an American commits a crime in a foreign country, he won't get off so easy in the future - and he shouldn't.

The U.S. Constitution would, I believe, have to be amended to allow the U.S. to limit its sovereignty by making itself subject to an outside body in every day.

Malcolm