>>3) ... (and that is often the case with Barack Obama)
>
>Show me one politician who does anything else. In fact that behaviour is part of the job description.
>
>Let's say Bush jr. and the torture. What else then ignoring the sense and meaning of law was that?

Sorry, but you really need to re-examine your premises.

One can make an argument that waterboarding violated US law and international law. I'm not going to dispute that. One might also say that at least the Bush administration was responding to a very bloody attack on American soil. I think the circumstances on that issue are enormously complicated. But as I look back on it - yes, it probably was torture and probably did violate international law. I also believe some intelligence sources who say that it did provide some valuable information.

But there is a major difference between violating a law, and choosing NOT to execute existing laws. This administration has a very bad habit of choosing to avoid executing certain laws. People sometimes accuse me of being very rough on Obama - maybe that's true, but it's partly because of the standard he claimed to set....and how miserably he has failed in upholding even a modicum of transparency.

And by the way - some of the very people who claimed the US violated international law on waterboarding, have not been as vocal in the past about far worse violations of human rights in other countries.