5 ms·

I'm confused by your Bush and Obama references—both incidents occurred under Bush, the one that you attribute to Bush was revealed under Obama, whereas the one

I'm confused by your Bush and Obama references—both incidents occurred under Bush, the one that you attribute to Bush was revealed under Obama, whereas the one you attribute to Obama was revealed under Bush. Are you attributing based on occurrence or based on decision not to prosecute? Did you accidentally switch them?

0xdde 6y ago
Do you have some deeper point you're trying to get at? This sounds like a total nitpick, and I'm not sure where you're getting your erroneous corrections from. The illegal wire-tapping was a matter known to the public before Obama's time and there was a case brought by the EFF during the Bush years. The CIA torture comment most likely refers to the fact that a Senate report on CIA abuses was published during Obama's tenure and led to no punishment that I'm aware of.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  It is plain as day the current language in the comment is implying Obama was behind it. A clarification to that is pretty far from a nitpick.
  - Igelau 6y ago
    Polarizing much? When you get to "or the CIA torturers" back up and find the verb. It's just poor sentence structure.
    - versteegen 6y ago
      I can see your argument that it's ambiguous, but the wrong reading is the most natural one to me. Clarification is justified.
      - kelnos 6y ago
        Just another data point: I read it same as the parent, that the original text was referring to the fact that the Obama administration didn't prosecute the torturers (regardless of when it occurred). It seemed obvious to me that the point being made was that neither party seems to care to hold wrongdoers in government accountable for their actions.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Igelau 6y ago
It appears to be trying to say "no one prosecuted the CIA torturers (and the Obama administration should have)." Implying not that his administration was behind it, but that his administration failed to do anything about it after the fact. Which may or may not be a fair point.

0xdde 6y ago

Do you have some deeper point you're trying to get at? This sounds like a total nitpick, and I'm not sure where you're getting your erroneous corrections from. The illegal wire-tapping was a matter known to the public before Obama's time and there was a case brought by the EFF during the Bush years. The CIA torture comment most likely refers to the fact that a Senate report on CIA abuses was published during Obama's tenure and led to no punishment that I'm aware of.

BoorishBears 6y ago
It is plain as day the current language in the comment is implying Obama was behind it. A clarification to that is pretty far from a nitpick.
- Igelau 6y ago
  Polarizing much? When you get to "or the CIA torturers" back up and find the verb. It's just poor sentence structure.
  - versteegen 6y ago
    I can see your argument that it's ambiguous, but the wrong reading is the most natural one to me. Clarification is justified.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Just another data point: I read it same as the parent, that the original text was referring to the fact that the Obama administration didn't prosecute the torturers (regardless of when it occurred). It seemed obvious to me that the point being made was that neither party seems to care to hold wrongdoers in government accountable for their actions.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Igelau 6y ago

It appears to be trying to say "no one prosecuted the CIA torturers (and the Obama administration should have)." Implying not that his administration was behind it, but that his administration failed to do anything about it after the fact. Which may or may not be a fair point.