It's Hypocrisy, But Answer The Question
Eli Lake says Republicans intend questioning CIA director-designate Leon Panetta nomination on the basis of his possible involvement in the Clinton administration's illegal rendition activities.
Put aside the glaring hypocrisy of right-wingers suddenly deciding such renditions might be a bad thing after protesting vigorously for eight years that they were an essential and excusable tool in the War On Some Terror. Put aside the hypocrisy of leftwing pundits who are suddenly using the term "extraordinary rendition" where before they had no problem calling an illegal spade a spade.
Panetta should face questions like these, and he shouldn’t do what CIA director-designates often do when receiving them, which is offering answers in closed sessions. The public is owed a reckoning about the torture that was done in its name, no matter who was president when it occurred. Just because committee Republicans are being selective and obnoxious about this doesn’t invalidate the principle.
Illegal is illegal, and I for one am heartily sick of those who change their stance on that depending on whether or not "their" guy did it. It's not simply all about closing Gitmo.
Crossposted from Newshoggers
IOKIYAD (or something like that).
John Conyers on Ed Schultz shortly.
ed WILL be asking him about the House and investigating bushco.
try to listen if you can:
http://wegoted.com/listenLive/
Dunno about you...but I'm wondering just how long our govt has been in the extraordinary rendition business.
Most western governments' have probably been in the rendition business in one form or another for most of the last century.
A friend of mine was recently at a govenment conference (civil servants only) in which visiting Spanish representatives were asked what they do when they find an illegal immigrant who is guilty of terrorism but who will also be tortured if deported to his home country. The Spaniards answered "we put him on a plane anyway...and...then we don't tell Amnesty International."
how do they know if he's guilty?
Apparently (this is hearsay from a friend of mine who was at the meeting), guilt is generally determined either by the level of notoriety of the prospective returnee's reputation for violent criminal/terrorist acts or is established by "evidence" received from the country that wants him back to torture him.
Let the boosh legacy whitewashing begin!
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Where the Hell was your patriotism and constitutional concerns when the Nation truly needed it?
So it appears that Clinton rarely used the rendition process, and only in those cases where the detainee was wanted for crimes in his/her own country. That seems like a valid program, except that we know (and the Clinton administration surely knew) that some of those countries would torture those criminals sent to them. A terrible conundrum.
He should have used the extradition process.
clinton used renditions and thus torture, and panetta should be asked about such. did he agree with clinton's use of rendition? did he ever speak out against clinton's renditions and torture?
he should be asked.
But not from the Repuke hypocrites who always rubber stamped rendition, thus torture for dumbass...political theater
you would deserve a nobel prize if a law was codified that stated: any elected official involved in crime/corruption could never sit on a committee investigating the same crime/corruption of another individual(s).
That would mean that hardly any elected officials could serve on those investigative commissions.
I, personally, think that all elected officials charged with crimes should be tried by the people, in the peoples' court, not by other elected officials.
elected officials guilty of crimes/corruption should be ejected and rejected...
...remember the Clarence Thomas Confirmation?
i was trying to give you credit for something that i thought important
nevermind
I just hope for bipartisan exposure of the proponents of rendition/torture whatever the means.
been there done that
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 10:43 — LeftandLeft
...remember the Clarence Thomas Confirmation?
_________________________________________________
I ain't Catholic.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
By david vitter?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the interchangeability of the two parties, nest paw?
The fact that the Democrats are very far from perfect does not make them the same as Republicans. Through gradual and incremental change, American society should be moved towards the left. Attacks on Democrats are risky while 47% of the electorate would prefer President Palin.
"Attacks on Democrats are risky while 47% of the electorate would prefer President Palin"
you make a good point. yet, this is a similar argument the DLC has made for years now, moving the country further to the right, in an attempt to shutdown any criticism from the left...
Totally. The shift in the country is going to occur like evolution in stages and gradual shifts as Bob says. Every two years you move it in that direction. You get out people like Joe Lieberman and put in people like Ned Lamont. Just giving up all together and wishing it would all go away is not an option. It's the hard path, but as we've seen with Howard Dean etc. It is possible and we are fully capable of making it happen. Get involved in the House races, etc. Reform the media. Spread the truth.
by the corporations, for the corporations… and their buddies.
The Republicrats.
The differences you suppose are window dressing.
End Corporate personhood, they can't vote but they they elect the politicians.
And they write the laws.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Take it as given that I understand your basic point.
So what? How do you propose to change society? What are your practical suggestions?
as it is the corporate dominance of the government that needs to be changed.
So number one it cannot be a given that you understand my basic point.
My overriding suggestion is already stated, which you did not understand, end Corporate personhood.
I already said that.
Change the references in law that corporations are persons.
Much will flow from this.
Prohibit corporate lobbyists from hands on writing of the laws.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
the capitalist system. No one is going to change that. It's a fundamental principle of the common law.
If the corporation is not a separate person, then the corporation's owners are liable for the corporation's actions. This would mean, for example, that if you start a small company, obtain a business loan and contribute your own money and then the corporation misses a deadline thereby breching a contract, the other party could come take your home to pay off the corporation's debts.
If would also mean that shareholder of banks could be sued to have all of their assets taken to keep banks afloat. (As owners, the shareholders would be responsible for the banks' actions).
I understand your point. I don't agree with it.
corporate personhood is a huge problem. corporations are provided the same rights as individuals under the bill of rights, yet they are, by orders of magnitude, more politically powerful than individuals, and are thus, able to skew the market to their favor.
than some individuals. The incorporated mom-and-pop store down the street is less politically significant than mom or pop.
Some individuals, like George Soros or Bill Gates, are more powerful than most (maybe all?) corporations. Removing corporate personhood is not a one-size-fits all solution.
the santa clara county decision gave the fictitious, not-a-real-thing, concept of corporations the same rights as flesh and blood people. right to free speech, equal protection, etc.
yes, obviously, some corporations are more powerful than others, and some rich people are more powerful than some businesses, granted and given. that is not the point. the problem is existence of corporate personhood: the fact that fictitious entities have been given rights not granted in the constitution, rights that make them much, much, much more powerful than the citizens of the country.
fully prepared to abandon the Capitalist system, in spirit at least.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
...but almost no one else is.
sensible single sentence.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
or, better: overturn, overturn, overturn
the HORRENDOUS decision of santa clara county versus southern pacific railroad must be overturned. taking away corporate personhood is a vital aspect of correcting our skewed system, and that would require overturning santa clara. of course, you might sooner see a pig fly.
Otherwise, owners are directly liable for the corporations' actions.
If you go this route, all business organizations become partnerships or sole proprietorships. Banking becomes impossible (though loansharking still works).
Now, limiting or abolishing political contributions from corporations is much more possible and practical and doesn't undermine the foundations of our economy. But you and Alice seem to be going further than that.
i think overturning the santa clara county decision is more than important, it is crucial to the future of the country.
you say that this is the "only" way corporations can really exist... so, how did corporations exist before 1886?
no, corporate personhood favors the corporations over the democratic process.
corporations can meaningfully exist in today's first world, complex economy and society.
You can call any organization a corporation, but if its owners are not protected from contractual liability, then the primary benefit of incorporating is lost and there's very little reason to have a corporation at all.
Would you really like to set economic development back more than century?
Do you, or any pension plan you are a member of, own bank stock or GM/Ford/Chrysler shares? Without corporate personhood, you could be presented with the bill for their debts (up to the total amount of your assets).
i think we are talking past each other.
this is going nowhere. you don't seem to understand the point i am making. probably my fault for poor writing, but still, this is circular.
i think we are arguing two dif things. i am arguing against the decision--santa clara county--to give corporations the same bill of rights protections as people. you are arguing in favor of the protections owners have in the event of a lawsuit. 2 different things. protections for owners (in most circumstances), LLC, etc. seem apropos. BUT considering a fictitious entity a person: not appropriate.
Prior to 1886, the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment defined human rights, and individuals - representing themselves and their own opinions - were free to say and do what they wanted. Corporations, being artificial creations of the states, didn't have rights, but instead had privileges. The state in which a corporation was incorporated determined those privileges and how they could be used. And the same, of course, was true for other forms of "legally enacted game playing" such as unions, churches, unincorporated businesses, partnerships, and even governments, all of which have only privileges.
But with the stroke of his pen, Court Reporter Davis moved corporations out of that "privileges" category - leaving behind all the others (unions, governments, and small unincorporated businesses still don't have "rights") - and moved them into the "rights" category with humans, citing the 14th Amendment which was passed at the end of the Civil War to grant the human right of equal protection under the law to newly-freed slaves.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
my point exactly.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The Corporation - Trailer
http://www.spike.com/video/corporation-traile...
Study the symptoms not the virus...
It's appreciated.
Thanks from me too! We really need to put an end to these governmental crimes!
Panetta should answer the question.
John Conyers on Ed Schultz shortly.
ed WILL be asking him about the House and investigating bushco.
try to listen if you can:
http://wegoted.com/listenLive/
what a bunch of assholes. They sit bye for 8 years and just suck up to what ever there dick-tater wanted.
Does he have anymore lifelines to call?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
they go into closed door session (because of national security issues)
what exactly do we gain?
I like seeing these people doing their job...what I don't like is that these assholes are only doing their job now because of political motivations.
They wouldn't not allow anyone to question their nominees, no matter what! but now that it's a Democrat in the White House they want checks and balances. This is exactly why I say Republicans are the Greatest Enemy America will ever face.
The reason they are so dangerous is that they are on the inside, and American can only be brought down from within.
We haven't had enough questions ask during the last eight years.
The republicans just rubber stamped anything bush wanted.
As far as I am concerned if they find out clinton was having people tortured then he should stand trial right along with bush and chenny.
What is wrong is wrong it doesn't make any difference who or why the person is doing it it is still wrong!
You got that right.
The republicans are the biggest danger America has ever faced. Yes part of the problem is they are on the inside but the other part is the are so damned stupid!
He should face these questions, but he should have a stack of paper in front of him with quotations from every Republican who supported the Bush administration's program. It is obvious now that Panetta (who will be working with Obama instead of Clinton) will not be involved in renditions.
Absolutely. Not only should Panetta be grilled, but if criminal charges are ever brought to bear for the war crimes, Clinton should also be placed under scrutiny along with Bush and Cheney. The renditions were an attempt to skirt the law and avoid accountability for what every player involed knew to be war crimes. The Republicans can go suck my arse...nobody is buying that they actully give a shit about the rule of law or standards of basic human decency. This is just a power game to them. They can go ahead and play it, they don't seem to realize that they are only making themselves ever-more irrelevant.
Illegal is illegal.
If the Republicans are that upset about it, I'm sure they won't mind if we investigate Bush also.
wrong is wrong.
besides, if this is opened, then they have to investigate all renditions from clinton forward.
sounds good to me.
and let's finally shut down the school of the americas, changing its name is a whitewash.
Comments are closed on this entry