« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

Dems Urge Holder To Allow Torture Probe To Go Further
Some top Democrats are expressing disappointment with Eric Holder's announcement of a probe into Bush-era torture, and specifically with Holder's apparent decision to ensure the probe doesn't look at the Bush officials who authorized the policy.
In just-released statements, Reps John Conyers and Jerry Nadler of the House Judiciary committee applaud the decision to probe torture, but add that "it would not be fair or just for frontline personnel to be held accountable while the policymakers and lawyers escape scrutiny after creating and approving conditions where such abuses were all but inevitable to occur."
Sen Russ Feingold agrees. His statement says, in full:
I applaud Attorney General Holder's decision to appoint a prosecutor to review the shocking violations of law that took place under the Bush administration. We cannot simply sweep these abuses under the rug. This investigation should not be limited to those who carried out interrogations or to whether the abuses they engaged in were officially sanctioned. The abuses that were officially sanctioned amounted to torture and those at the very top who authorized, ordered or sought to provide legal cover for them should be held accountable.
And Sen. Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Senate Judiciary committee, similarly welcomed the investigation, but said: "I still believe that a nonpartisan, independent review is the best way to get the full picture of how our laws were applied or broken."
Here's the full Conyers-Nadler statement:
Conyers and Nadler Applaud Appointment of Special ProsecutorPolicymakers and Lawyers Must Also Be Held to Account
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) issued the following statements in response to the Department of Justice decision to appoint a special prosecutor to review certain cases of alleged abuse of detainees.
"I applaud the Attorney General's decision to appoint a special US Attorney to review the interrogation abuse cases that were rejected for prosecution by George Bush's Justice Department," said Conyers. "The Obama Administration also deserves praise for the release of the 2004 CIA Inspector General report as well as related DOJ memos. These materials are truly disturbing, including the CIA's basic conclusion that 'unauthorized, improvised, inhumane, and undocumented detention and interrogation techniques were used' in its program. Reading about misdeeds such as threats to kill a detainees' children or the staging of mock executions leaves us appalled.
"Today's release -- even of these still heavily redacted materials -- is thus an important step toward restoring the rule of law in this country, and rebuilding our credibility around the world. But much more remains to be done. The gruesome acts described in today's report did not happen in a vacuum. It would not be fair or just for frontline personnel to be held accountable while the policymakers and lawyers escape scrutiny after creating and approving conditions where such abuses were all but inevitable to occur.
"I have long believed that Department rules require a special counsel to review the entire interrogation program to determine if any crimes were committed. An independent and bipartisan commission should also be convened to evaluate the broader issues raised by the Bush Administration's brutal torture program."
"The CIA Inspector General's report on interrogation practices under the Bush administration is a disturbing record of abuse that details why this must never happen again and why action on the part of the Justice Department is essential," said Nadler. "Today's news that the Attorney General has listened to our many requests and is poised to appoint a special counsel is very much welcome. I applaud the Attorney General for this first step. But, we must go further. As I have said for many months, it is vital that this special counsel be given a broad mandate to investigate these abuses, to follow the evidence where it leads, and to prosecute where warranted. This must be a robust mission to gather any and all evidence without predetermination of where it may lead. Seeking out only the low-level actors in a conspiracy to torture detainees will bring neither justice nor restored standing to our nation."
And here's the Leahy statement:
I recognize how difficult this decision has been for Attorney General Holder, and I am grateful that the Justice Department is finally being led by an independent Attorney General who is willing to begin investigating this dark chapter in our country's history. I had no doubt that he would put the interests of the law ahead of politics, and he has demonstrated that. While I still believe that a nonpartisan, independent review is the best way to get the full picture of how our laws were applied or broken, I hope this investigation will also bring a measure of accountability to the American people in holding responsible those whose decisions may have undermined our values and our laws.

















Ahh Yes... this is the measured pressure that should come from the left. An acknowledgment of getting the Appointment of a Spec. Prosecutor with the urging to do more.
August 24, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume that as things come to light that the scope of the investigation will expand appropriatly.
The political process as it interfaces with the process of law can be painfully slow but this is the first step.
Kudos to Holder and the administration for being thoughtful and carefull with their approach.
August 24, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it remains to be seen what they'll do, and I'm not necessarily convinced that this will indeed go somewhere else, but I think we can read into Burton's statements today about the president supporting Holder as a "truly independent" attorney general that if this goes higher, deeper, etc., then so be it.
August 24, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can always hope that the low level people will point up the chain of command... and the hotter it gets for them the more publicly they may wish to do so.
August 25, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are far too optimistic.
It seems clear to me from Holder's statement there is no intention of allowing the investigation to go beyond the very limited scope he has outlined and indeed every intention of preventing it from doing so.
August 24, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's Presidency will go down the toilet if he allows Holder to grab a few "bad apples" while Yoo and Cheney skate.
On the other hand, launching a completely fruitless probe will wreck his tenure as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if his Presidency degenerates into a game of trying to run out the clock, like Bush's did.
August 24, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems clear to me that the best policy for all concerned, especially the nation as a whole, is to simply follow the law and let it take us wherever it leads no matter whose ox is gored. But that would be too easy.
August 24, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's Good War in Afghanistan will be undermined by a thorough accounting of what Xe/CIA has done to that country, as well as to everywhere else.
Can't have that. Obama has ended the GWOT in name, but in name only. And since this farce ends in America, not in Afghanistan or anywhere else, Obama will perpetrate it at all costs.
August 24, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop calling the moderate liberal-left "left": by so doing you mimic the FOX fraud.
August 25, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. Keep pushing, guys, and justice will be served.
August 24, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be naive. Justice is seen this lot over in The Hague. That isn't going to happen. Bush, Cheney and Addington aren't going to be prosecuted here. Fredo, Rummy, Yoo & Co. aren't going to be prosecuted. A few scapegoats at most, but more likely even they will be swept under the rug. The Obama Admin has no stomach for standing up for the Rule Of Law.
Nixon must be rolling over in his grave that he resigned for far less. If only he had the GOP Lapdogs, the Demowussies and Media Elite that exist today.
John
August 24, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful! A human being so cynical that, unlike the rest of us, he can predict the future!
Tell us how you do it -- aside from first rejecting reason and critical faculties!
August 25, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy. You study the past and project into the future.
Abu Gharib - the only people who were prosecuted were a non-com and a private, not the officers who were "responsible" for their actions.
Obama stating that we should look ahead before we find out where we are standing now.
The CIA admitting to crimes (waterboarding) and no prosecutions even being considered.
It is easy to be pessimistic about the Obama Administration doing anything concerning returning the USA to the Rule of Law and Justice for All.
They have had six months to set a new course for the USA and all we have seen is a continuation of the Bush Administration policies.
August 25, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
How fucking uninformed as to processes must you insist on being -- and for how many more decades?
Obama -- the country -- has been left a mess, a gov't in a shambles. The illegalities are a cancer which is entangled with legalities. Untangling those balls of yarn TAKES TIME. It is especially difficult where the illegalities need to be exposed and addressed but are entwined with issues LEGITMATELY KEPT CLASSIFIED.
I'd ask you try thinking for a change, but you're too invested in being a know-it-all.
August 26, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please describe any of these issues which must be classified so highly that Congress cannot be made aware of them.
As for anything being difficult, that is no excuse for not doing that which is right, or for not doing anything at all to correct wrongs and injustices.
There are many things Obama could have done in the past seven (7) months to provide that "Change We Can Believe In" that haven't even been considered by his Administration.
.
August 26, 2009 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly don't get that the mess left by the Bushit criminal enterprise was premised upon everything they did being "legal". That means there are legitimate secrets tangled up with the illegalities.
Now it's your trun to go even further into your extreme genralization: tell us all the contents of all those suppressed documents that are so deepely suppressed that one can't in fact determine that the documents actually exist, let alone what their contents might be.
August 27, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Learn how our system of gov't is structured, and which of the three branches have exclusive authorities.
Then apply those to your complaints and demands.
It is NOT a President's role to investigate and prosecute crimes. NOR is it a President's proper role to order the DOJ to conduct invetigations according to your political demands.
It is CONGRESS' role to do the oversight of the Executive, and the DOJ -- which latter is to function independently of Executive whim.
August 27, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God there are some people on Capitol Hill with enough decency to demand that war crimes actually get investigated and prosecuted!
Holder intends only to find a handful of scapegoats and to close his eyes to the real and worst war crimes that took place. Thus, Feingold, et al are doing exactly what they should do which is to insist on the enforcement of our laws and treaty obligations in full.
It is completely disgusting to think that in the United States the "I was only following orders" defense would ever be allowed but that is exactly what Owimpa and Holder are condoning and giving precedent to if they get away with ignoring the widespread violations of the Geneva Conventions and our own laws.
August 24, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, oleeb!
August 24, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody else see a bunch of "stern-worded letters" coming to Holder from Congress or is it just me...?
August 24, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the "I was only following orders" defense. This is the "I had a note from my lawyer that said it was okay" defense.
Anyway, if they want the investigation to go into every little nook and cranny far beyond the prosecutor's original remit, they ought to name Ken Starr special prosecutor.
August 24, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
An opinion from a lawyer is very different from a ruling by a judge. It can go a very long way on questions of good faith, but at the end of the day whether or not you broke the law should be decided by a judge or a jury.
A legal system where all you need to acquire immunity is a note from your lawyer is worthless. It can never provide justice. We need convictions and people spending long prison sentences for this to restore accountability to our political system. And it can't just be the guys in the trenches, it also has to be the lawyers and politicians who tried to spin a defense for human rights violations and war crimes like it was some sort of game.
And no, we don't need Ken Starr or any other hack who will turn this into a political witch hunt. We need somebody who is going to take this seriously and behave with integrity because justice is supposed to be blind. It is supposed to apply to the powerful just as it applies to the powerless otherwise it isn't justice. Following an investigation of wrongdoing into areas not immediately obvious at the outset is a very different beast than inventing an investigation out of nothing for pure political posturing.
August 24, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, but our system (read "our leaders") don't want to restore the integrity of our system. They want to avoid making the criminals being forced to take repsonsibility for their crimes at all costs because most of our elected leaders in both parties (with the exception of those brave liberals who insist on the law being enforced)are so utterly corrupt they genuinely don't see all that much wrong with what took place. The rot and stink of corruption is so widespread in DC it is remarkable.
August 24, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad but true. The national political system has gotten completely out of control and we need to figure out how to get back on to track.
The obvious result of a system without accountability is corruption. If our elected officials won't hold law breakers accountable, we need to hold the officials accountable. I don't know a lot about it, but I think the green party in Australia provides a good model for this. They were pushing for instant runoff voting and the liberal politicians would hear none of it. So the greens started running candidates in the liberal strongholds and winning. The election system changed lickety split.
We've asked for what we want. We've voted for what we want. If we still don't get what we want, it's time to start fighting dirty and going after these guys where it hurts. As long as we are too scared of elections going to Republicans to challenge our elected officials to do the right thing, we will go through a cycle of criminals and those unwilling to hold them in account.
We need to pay attention to what our elected officials are doing, call foul when they misbehave and pull support when they don't improve. The little D next to a candidate's name is not enough to ensure support. It's time somebody explains that to them.
August 25, 2009 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Hit em where it hurts. It's the only way to get their attention.
August 25, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up, and stop smearing everyone, including those you smear but for which have NO evidence of corruption.
I am sick and tired of you fashionable cynics who know-it-all without bothering to wait for such trivialities as facts and evidence.
Let me guess: Your real name is Bushit-Cheney.
August 25, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No evidence of corruption?
Are you ignoring the millions of dollars given to Members of Congress in the form of "campaign Contributions" (bribes)?
Name one member of Congress who is not "on the take".
August 25, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Name one who has violated the law as you IMPLY is being done by eveyone in Congress, and probably everyone who once was in Congress, and all those who in future will be in Congress.
August 27, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facts? Evidence? Are you blind, stupid or both?
That our leaders are corrupt is as clear as can be. Perhaps you prefer a state of denial regarding self evident facts but I don't. So, if you are sick of the truth well, that's not my problem. So whine to someone else who cares about mollifying your naive, and willfully uninformed view.
August 25, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's jetison innocent unless and until proven otherwise: doing so is all the rage among the self-righteously arrogant on the far-right.
And let's use torture too.
August 26, 2009 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really trying to convince us that Members of Congress have not taken any money (Campaign Contributions/Bribes) from the health insurance industry? Or that they didn't take $3 Million from the Bank of America right before they gave the Bank of America #30 Billion of taxpayer's money.
A 10,000 to 1 return on an investment is better than most of us can accomplish.
.
August 26, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I question the unilateral ASSUMPTION that campaign contributions in all instances predict -- or "buy" -- how the recipient will vote.
Tell us: how many of those same recipients of contributions from the insurance industry also received equivalent amounts from other industries? Oh, right: they readily sell their votes to the highest bidder. That's always true. It's never possible for a politician to be honest. Never, never, never,
August 27, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's only so far one can go with willful, deliberate, hands-over-eyes-and-fingers-in-ears blindness and deafness. And we are seeing a classic example here.
Notice how Unintentionally Hilarious JNagarya presents with double whammy of strawmen and goalpost-moving. "that campaign contributions in all instances predict -- or "buy" -- how the recipient will vote" -- and "It's never possible for a politician to be honest."
Nobody, of course, has claimed either of those things. That's what makes them strawmen. It's so much easier to argue against what you wish someone has said than against what someone actually said -- and so much more colorful when liberally peppered with "asshole"s and "fucking"s, leavened with such pearls of wisdom as "Let me guess: Your real name is Bushit-Cheney" and "Why are you lying against Obama? Because he's black, and you're racist? Because he's a Democrat and you're a REpublican?" Sooooo much more persuasive that way, n'est-ce pas?
August 27, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet based solely upon abundant hot air you and your ilk make genralized accusations that ALL politicians are corrupt.
Take it to Free Republic, FOX, or Beck's blog, troll. They'll appeciate that anti-gum'mint indoctrination.
August 29, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just can't help yourself, can you? Nobody is claiming that ALL politicians are corrupt. But that doesn't matter to you, because you have no prayer of making an actual point. So, instead, in between the kindergarten playground flinging around of "troll", "asshole" "fucking" this, "fucking" that, "nyah nyah nyah let me guess your real name is Bushit-Cheney", "neener neener you're lying against Obama because he's black and you're a racist", and the rest, which is evidently your favorite mode of discourse, you engage in pathetic, content-free attempts to make vacuous "points" by erecting and then knocking down patent strawmen. You simply have no clue about how to argue actual issues that people are discussing.
You can't even seem to figure out whom Congress should be impeaching right now, although you seem to be real fired up about the idea. You are oblivious to the irony of posting the potty trash that's all over these threads against people who have been on this board (and, incidentally, supporting Obama) for YEARS, and in the same breath, lecturing us to "grow up, and stop smearing everyone." "Pathetic" doesn't begin to describe it.
September 1, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as the FEC distinguishes between "soft" and "hard" money campaign contributions, I think we can classify "soft" and "hard" corruption.
Hard corruption would be the Blago style pay-to-play politics (similar to a newspaper taking a bribe to cover up a story). Soft corruption lacks an obvious or direct agreement of quid pro quo but a decision is made with the expectation of gaining a quantifiable benefit or avoiding a consequence (like a newspaper not covering a story to avoid upsetting an advertiser).
If you allow for "soft" corruption then oleeb's assertion becomes obvious. The majority of national politicians spend their careers courting lobbyists to fund their campaigns. While they often have their pet causes to fight for, on many issues compromises are made which cost us and benefit the rich and powerful.
Unfortunately, the problem is quite entrenched in our politics. Politicians that aren't interested in playing the game never get any traction. As a result, real changes that would upset this balance rarely happen and when they do it tends to be for PR (why was McCain's campaign in violation of McCain's campaign finance reform legislation?).
In order to get real relief from the stranglehold corporate interests have on our political system, radical changes will need to be implemented. A ban on all political advertising comes to mind as a possibility.
August 26, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you allow for "soft" corruption then oleeb's assertion becomes obvious. The majority of national politicians spend their careers courting lobbyists to fund their campaigns. While they often have their pet causes to fight for, on many issues compromises are made which cost us and benefit the rich and powerful.
_____
Substantiate.
August 27, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
High up in the running for the Unintentionally Hilarious Blog Posts, Subcategory: Transparent Hypocrisy award.
August 26, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it that everytime we get control of all three branches they end up fighting with each other, instead of accomplishing great things in keeping with the Democratic Platform? Jeebus, what's wrong with these people?
August 24, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only tortured prisoners according to the torture policies approved by John Yoo and Jay Bybee would not pass muster at Nuremberg. A career Justice Department employee investigating the Justice Department is not an independent prosecutor. But I guess there isn't a conflict because he's not going to investigate whether laws were broken by the DOJ or other high ranking government officials. How will this will be any different than the Bush administration's decision to prosecute Army privates for torture at Abu Ghraib? Army privates don't make policy and neither do CIA interrogators. The Obama administration wants to be congratulated for talking about justice without acting for justice.
August 24, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
While things are being "investigated" a ton of public shame should be applied to Bybee, Yoo and the gang. If it were up to me, public scorn and ridicule would be served up on a continuous loop. At work, at play, at restaurants, while shopping...everywhere they go, scorn and shame should follow.
August 24, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not Enough!"
Right not enough investigations by Congress. Dems in Congress have subpoena power and had over two and a half years to investigate war crimes. Now you have the gall and intellectual dishonesty to criticize AG Holder for investigating when you did not.
August 24, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems only have the balls to criticize other dems.
August 24, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need Congressional investigations. Levin's committee and others have done that. We need criminal investigations according to the mandates of existing laws and treaties. Trying to deflect criticism from Owimpa and Holder by pointing the finger at Congress is very lame. Congress doesn't do criminal investigations and Congress is not charged with that responsibility. Criminal investigations of the kind needed can only be performed by the Department of Justice.
August 24, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Congress doesn't do criminal investigations and Congress is not charged with that responsibility."
It certainly does. That's how, during impeachment hearings, it develops evidence of High CRIMES and Misdemeanors.
Slugs will lie about the Constitution in order to have excuse to bash, bash, and bash.
Clue: Being stupid isn't smart.
August 25, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speak for yourself grasshopper.
Impeachment hearings are not criminal investigations at all in anything like the common understanding. They are a unique and limited means given the Congress by the Constitution for specific purposes with respect to a very limited number of officials and that power has absolutely no connection to or correlation with the kind of criminal investigation referenced. Your poor understanding and your smug foolishness are an embarassment to you. You really should know something about the things you make a comment about before shooting off your ill-informed mouth to others.
August 25, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
High Crimes are CRIMES -- even when only a "third rate burglary," which is a CRIME -- regarldess your effort to save face by giving the term "crime" a different defintion for the occasion.
August 26, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good, then let's have Congress launch impeachment investigations. Any suggestions about whom Congress should be impeaching right now? Please let them know, I'm sure they'll be all ears.
August 26, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's become quite clear you really are not very well informed about what the purpose of impeachment is or what the use of the term high crimes and misdemeanors intends.
August 28, 2009 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you leave out any explanation of your superior knowledge, and greater information.
"Impeachment" is "indictment". "Indictment" is a response to C-R-I-M-E. Even if "only" a criminal-conspiracy intended to cover up a "third-rate burglary," which is also a crime.
August 29, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, for the reading impaired:
Good, then let's have Congress launch impeachment investigations. Any suggestions about whom Congress should be impeaching right now? Please let them know, I'm sure they'll be all ears.
You haven't stepped up to the plate with the answer about whom Congress should be impeaching right now. Cat got your tongue?
September 1, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Expand! Otherwise the guilty will go free and some chump like Scooter Libby will take the fall for all these horrible crimes.
August 24, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
One tiny nagging problem: President Obama has not stopped the torture program in its entirety. Instead he plans on an Executive Branch run "interrogations" office, where the torture will be that which he approves of. Obama's continuing problem is his timidity when it comes with making a clean break with the crimes of the Bush administration. Perhaps he thinks being a dictator would be cool too.
August 24, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Asshole: President Obamba has expressly said that interrogations wioll be conudcted in keeping with the Army manual. He also expressly said that the tortures used by the Biushit criminal enterprise are NOT to be used.
Why are you lying against Obama? Because he's black, and you're racist? Because he's a Democrat and you're a REpublican?
August 25, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your icon photo is up to date.
August 26, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that I have a haircut.
August 27, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Un, fucking, believable. Talk about spreading around baseless smears. Whatever happened to "innocent unless and until proven otherwise", and all your righteous indignation about "smears" with which you are busily peppering these discussion threads -- or does all that suddenly not apply when you want to do the smearing?
August 26, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be clear, I was responding to this:
Seems JNagarya has trouble abiding by the words of, well, JNagarya, to wit:
As I note downthread: Unintentinally Hilarious, Subcategory: Transparent Hypocrisy.
August 26, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can Obama be timid AND a dictator?
August 24, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it's a crime to do X, how can it not be a crime for a government official to authorize someone to do X?
August 24, 2009 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is. In fact, it's conspiracy. But in order to prosecute on conspiracy charges, it's helpful to establish there was a crime. So, first you let a prosecutor investigate the allegations. Then, you determine a crime has been committed. Then you start looking at how widespread the scope of culpability was, in order to establish the conspiracy charges.
August 24, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allegations??
There have been crimes which were admitted to have been perpetrated.
What is the need for an investigation into whether or not crimes were committed?
Waterboarding is a CRIME. Japanese were executed for that crime by Americans after WW2. Is this no longer a crime because Americans did it?
It is past time for prosecutions, both for those who performed these acts and for those who authorized and/or ordered them.
.
August 25, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't rely on admitted criminals to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help themselves. Cheney is an example as to why.
Certainly their confesses -- so long as not obtained by mans of TORTURE* -- can be entered into evidence. But I want ALL their crimes, including those to which they DON'T confress, documented and prsecuted.
_____
*Were I Dick "Dick" Cheney, I might argue that being Dick "Dick" Cheney is in itself torture, and it is that which compelled confession.
August 25, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need to know all their crimes. Those they have already admitted to (Waterboarding) historically carry a death by hanging penalty.
You cannot hang a pertson until they are dead more than once.
.
August 25, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to know ALL their crimes, so we know not only to make illegal that which isn't yet, but also who deserves justice for having been harmed and worse.
August 26, 2009 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just KNOW that this time Lucy won't pull the football away! REALLY! For SURE!
August 24, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Join me in reminding AG Holder that rule of law requires that no one is above the law:
askDOJ@usdoj.gov
August 24, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problems go beyond the criminal actions and breaking of international treaties. The net result of this episode IS aggrandizement of the executive branch.
Allowing these war crimes to go unpunished gives credence to the expanded powers of the President. It ensures that as long as the U.S. is at war we are ruled not by a President and the checks and balances built into the Constituion, but a "CONSTITUTIONAL DICTATOR."
If the political elite can break the law with impunity then there is one inescapable conclusion, i.e., the President "IS ABOVE THE LAW."
For those wishing a great refresher course on the sordid history of this, see Glenn Greenwald's Salon.com article from the archives dated January 18, 2009.
Just tonight, ABC's Brian Ross (the guy who is hiding facts about the Anthrax attacks) was trying to claim that in a couple of instances torture stopped terrorist acts. Wrong! It doesn't matter whether torture is efficacious or not. It remains illegal and a war crime.
A.G. Holder and anyone else interested in this matter needs to read or reread the Convention Against Torture, especially Articles 2:2, and 2:3.
Article 2:2: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 2:3: An order from a superior officer or a PUBLIC AUTHORITY MAY NOT be invoked as a justification of torture...
To restrict any investigation to CIA doesn't make sense based on the law. By the way, the Constitution in Article VI states that international treaties...."shall be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. It's difficult to get any clearer about that.
One final note: On January 15, 2009 AG-to-be Eric Holder repeatedly claimed "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW." Now let's see if he really meant it.
August 24, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad closet-case Lynne Cheney was not an alcoholic/manic-depressive like Martha Mitchell, or all of this would have been accounted, by now.
August 24, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the worst of all possible investigative outcomes. You risk the alienation of the rank and file employee, grant support to the argument that the Yoo memos were within the scope of the law and allow the true perpetrators, those in charge of the political apparatus to escape investigation.
The decision to pursue criminal sanctions should take place only after a comprehensive investigation and airing or the details of this fetid period in US history.
Is there anything the Obama administration can't screw up??
August 25, 2009 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do have the least clue the complicated mess that was made, and then left for President Obama to clean up?
Ass: this involves a complicated entanglement of criminal acts and intelligence efforts.
This is the central difficulty:
How does one investigate and publicly report the crimes WITHOUT risking intelligence efforts by exposing them to publicity?
"Is there anything the Obama adminsitration can't screw up?"
Care to give us your lonnnnnngggg list of things the administration HAS screwed up?
August 25, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For starters:
The giveaway to the financial sector,
The Cash for Clunkers,
The "Change We Can Believe In" which hasn't happened,
The continued flouting of the Rule of Law and the concept of Justice for All,
The continuing "War on Terra" which benefits only the arms suppliers and those companies receiving "no bid" contracts for war matrerials and services.
Need more?
.
August 25, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a fucking short memory.
Just one of your smears -- the "giveaway to the financial sector":
The bailout, asshole, was pushed through by BUSHIT -- EVEN BEFORE the election.
August 26, 2009 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, the "bailout" was instituted by Bush before the election.
My complaint withm Obama is that he continued, and even expanded that "giveaway" to the financial sector. Obama expanded the idea of bailouts to the automotive industry and there is now talk that he is planning on expanding it to the appliance industry. Is housing next? Or was housing included in the financial sector bailout?
Obama has kept the same people who authored the necessity for these "bailouts" in charge of the US Financial system and is now proposing that Bernake get another four years to continue to screw up the US financial system.
.
August 26, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's obviously our misfortune that we didn't elect YOU, in view of the fact that YOU, even without being able to read Obama's mind, and having no access to all the facts and figures on which the decision for bailouts was based, are perfect, therefore would never ever make any sort of mistake.
Which qualifies you to sit on your ass and take unevidenced pot shots without bothering to have or know all the facts. Better to bash others than come up with solutions.
Then again, aren't your bashings SUBSTITUTES for offering solutions? Well, not exactly: your solution is to be ignorant of how our system functions, bash it because of that ignorance, and use all that as excuse to continue to not know how our system functions. All as excuse to not engage with the system, and not vote.
August 27, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink