Chris Matthews wonders what Jonathan Turley's motives are
By John Amato Saturday May 02, 2009 5:45am
You would think that Chris Matthews would know something about Jonathan Turley, since he's been on MSNBC for years and has openly spoken about the Bush administration and torture, and has consistently said that waterboarding is a war crime and should be prosecuted.
The key exchange:
TURLEY: You know, Chris, the thing that disturbs me most, the thing that I think is most grotesque, is not the thought of prosecuting high-ranking officials, it's that high-ranking officials ordered war crimes. And if we need to prosecute it to show the world that we are not hypocrites...
MATTHEWS: When did you first say that?
TURLEY: When did I first say that we should prosecute?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TURLEY: Back in the Bush administration.
MATTHEWS: And why—I remember that. Why did the—why do you think there was no call within the legal community to do what you‘re saying right now? Why was this country so relatively silent? You were out there alone. Why was this country so silent on the possibility that war crimes were being committed in this country for eight years?
TURLEY: Well, unfortunately, that was part of the distortive effect after 9/11. And quite frankly, we lost our bearings. And this really shows how dangerous torture can be. When you hate someone enough or you‘re afraid enough...
MATTHEWS: OK, so what you think is possible here...
TURLEY: ... that you can violate the law.
Transcript below the fold:
MATTHEWS: OK, Suppose we had Ramsey Clark as attorney general right now, a real flaming lib, who really wanted to get to the bottom of this and really wanted to hang some people high. What crimes in the U.S. code could he try people for?
TURLEY: Well, there‘s no question—there‘s no one has debated that it‘s a crime under the United States code, 18 USC code, to commit torture. Nobody‘s debating that. And more importantly, we‘re obligated in this country under article 7 of the Convention Against Torture, for example, to submit these cases for prosecution. Indeed, recently a U.N. official said that we‘re probably in violation now because we helped write that treaty, and it obligates countries to investigate and prosecute.
So we‘re not supposed to be like Serbia, where we say, Look, this just isn‘t a good time for us to investigate torture. It‘s an inconvenient thing. It‘s going to be divisive. None of that matters. Under the treaties that we helped write, a country is morally and legally obligated...
MATTHEWS: Well, how come the Bush administration never prosecuted anybody?
TURLEY: Because they were violating the law. It‘s not too surprising that the people...
MATTHEWS: You mean they‘re all guilty.
TURLEY: Well, it‘s not too surprising that the people that ordered a war crime didn‘t take these treaties very seriously.
MATTHEWS: Patrick Buchanan?
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I think what‘s going to happen
the commission is dead, but I don‘t think the president—this is up to Holder. This isn‘t up to the president of the United States whether you appoint an independent counsel.
I think what‘s coming, Chris, is the liberal wing in Congress will go all out and have a committee investigation. They will conclude that war crimes, torture was committed, war crimes, maybe people perjured themselves, and they will send this down to the Department of Justice. And at that point, you‘re liable to get enough heat on Holder that he‘s either going to have to sit on this and say, I‘m not going to do it, why, (ph) if, as is true, these laws have been violated, or he appoints an independent counsel. And frankly, I don‘t know how Barack Obama says, Don‘t prosecute him, and then prosecute him...
MATTHEWS: OK, what is the precedent for a United States prosecution of torture? Is there any...
(CROSSTALK)
TURLEY: We helped create it. We prosecuted...
MATTHEWS: ... hear your history (INAUDIBLE)
TURLEY: Yes, as long as they weren‘t Americans. We prosecuted people after World War II for waterboarding, not just for torture, for this specific form of torture. The U.S. Senate led the fight to prosecute a U.S. commander...
MATTHEWS: You think this is...
TURLEY: ... in the Philippines.
MATTHEWS: I know. You have a point of view, and I appreciate that. That‘s why I want you here. But do you believe this is plausible, that Eric Holder, who‘s center-left—he‘s not very far over—will do this?
TURLEY: Well, I think it is plausible, if he fulfills his oath. He‘s obligated to do this. This is insurmountable evidence...
MATTHEWS: You want him to do this?
TURLEY: ... of a war crime. Of course I do because it‘s important for this country to keep its word.
MATTHEWS: You want to see prosecution of people all the way up to Gonzales, all the way up to the vice president, to the president? How high would you go?
TURLEY: Well, you know...
MATTHEWS: Because you know they‘ve signed off on this. We all know that.
TURLEY: You know, Chris, the thing that disturbs me most, the thing that I think is most grotesque, is not the thought of prosecuting high-ranking officials, it‘s that high-ranking officials ordered war crimes. And if we need to prosecute it to show the world that we are not hypocrites...
MATTHEWS: When did you first say that?
TURLEY: When did I first say that we should prosecute?
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TURLEY: Back in the Bush administration.
MATTHEWS: And why—I remember that. Why did the—why do you think there was no call within the legal community to do what you‘re saying right now? Why was this country so relatively silent? You were out there alone. Why was this country so silent on the possibility that war crimes were being committed in this country for eight years?
TURLEY: Well, unfortunately, that was part of the distortive effect after 9/11. And quite frankly, we lost our bearings. And this really shows how dangerous torture can be. When you hate someone enough or you‘re afraid enough...
MATTHEWS: OK, so what you think is possible here...
TURLEY: ... that you can violate the law.
MATTHEWS: Pat, what he‘s saying...
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... is that there was a cabal.
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: The president, the vice president, his attorneys general, all the people working for him, all the—Addington, the vice president‘s people...
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... all those people agreed without any dissension, including Condi and the rest of them...
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: ... this was the right thing to do, torture these guys, and call it something else.
BUCHANAN: I don‘t—look, Chris, we know the facts. They made a decision to use enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, on certain individuals of al Qaeda to get information. They got the legal opinions on that. They went to the Security Council. People gave Bush various kinds of advice. The decider decided.
If you‘re going to investigate war crimes, quite frankly, you can‘t go after the CIA that just did it. You immunize them. You go up the line to the lawyers, and then you go in and get the people who decided.
MATTHEWS: What do you think of this?
BUCHANAN: I think it would be terrible for the country. And frankly, I believe if Barack Obama, if he had to do it, would—I think he‘s going to have to give a pardon, quite frankly, to the people who did it. Here‘s what‘s going to happen...
MATTHEWS: Can he do it without naming names? Can he just say, I pardon...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: ... because Bush won‘t accept a pardon.
BUCHANAN: Let‘s see the...
MATTHEWS: Cheney won‘t accept a pardon.
BUCHANAN: Nothing is going to happen...
MATTHEWS: Will they?
BUCHANAN: ... Chris—nothing is going to happen unless and until you get a congressional committee that brings these people up, gets names and sends this down to the Department of Justice. At that point, it is Holder‘s decision. And the president could say, Don‘t appoint a counsel or I‘ll fire you...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, let‘s look at Senator McCain. I trust him on this. He‘s been tortured. He has very strong credibility on this. We‘re going to commend him on it later. Here he is talking about the possibility of prosecutions in this regard.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA: In banana republics, they prosecute people for actions they didn‘t agree with under previous administrations. We‘ve got Bagram issues. We‘ve got what we do with the Guantanamo Bay attorneys. We‘ve got a whole array of problems associated with detainees. And to go back on a witch hunt that could last for a year or so, frankly, is going to be bad for the country, bad for future presidents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Well, is this—what are we looking at as a precedent? We don‘t have a precedent for this in our own country.
TURLEY: Well, first of all, I‘m not too sure what the senator means. A banana republic is a country that allows its leaders to commit crimes and doesn‘t prosecute them. It‘s a country that doesn‘t subscribe to the rule of law.
MATTHEWS: No, it‘s a country in which, if you lose an election or you get overthrown by a coup, you get your ass out of that country fast because the guy that just got in there‘s going to kill you.
TURLEY: No, the...
MATTHEWS: That‘s what he‘s talking about.
TURLEY: What happens is the test of the character of a nation is whether it‘s willing...
MATTHEWS: He‘s saying that there‘s political retribution in third world countries against anybody that‘s been thrown out of power.
TURLEY: It‘s not retribution to enforce the laws.
(CROSSTALK)
TURLEY: That‘s the definition of a nation that is committed to the rule of law.
BUCHANAN: You got the Fujimori case...
MATTHEWS: You don‘t accept what he just said.
TURLEY: Absolutely not.
BUCHANAN: You got Fujimori down in Peru, who‘s just been prosecuted and convicted for what he did done in office. McCain is right about what is...
MATTHEWS: But Fujimori is probably guilty.
BUCHANAN: Well, he was convicted. Obviously, he‘s guilty. But let me tell you, I think the...
TURLEY: So what‘s the problem?
BUCHANAN: From the standpoint of the nation, you will rip this country apart! Barack Obama won. The decisions Bush had taken were rejected, basically, you can say by the administration. Barack said, No more of that, that‘s over and done with...
MATTHEWS: OK, here‘s Paul Krugman.
BUCHANAN: ... stop it.
MATTHEWS: Admittedly, this man has a strong point of view, but it is a point of view in this country which has some prevalence. The “New York Times” columnist Paul Krugman this morning, before we found out about these thousands of new pictures of abuse—“These investigations should, where appropriate, be followed by prosecutions, not out of vindictiveness but because this is a nation of laws. We need to do this for the sake of our future, for this isn‘t about looking backward. It‘s about looking forward because it‘s about reclaiming America‘s soul.”
BUCHANAN: The polls today show that the American people still support enhanced interrogation techniques if you‘re dealing with al Qaeda types and if you‘re trying to stop 9/11.
TURLEY: It doesn‘t matter whether a crime is popular.
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: I‘m telling you it does matter whether you‘re going tear the country apart!
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Are you using the lingo of this administration? You don‘t usually fall for other people‘s lingo. Do you believe these are “enhanced interrogation” techniques or they‘re torture?
BUCHANAN: I think—I think waterboarding...
MATTHEWS: Is waterboarding torture?
BUCHANAN: ... is arguably torture.
MATTHEWS: OK. All right.
BUCHANAN: I mean, I think, quite frankly...
MATTHEWS: Well, why are you using their lingo?
BUCHANAN: But look, because I think it arguably is. I‘m not certain it is because I would have done the same thing Bush did.
TURLEY: Oh, I‘m sorry to hear that, Pat. But I got to tell you, I have more faith in this country than you do. I don‘t think it‘s going to rip this country apart to enforce the law.
BUCHANAN: To prosecute...
TURLEY: This country is made of stronger stuff. And you know what?
Even if everyone‘s against this—and it will be unpopular for Obama.
He‘s going to take a hit. That‘s why he doesn‘t want to do it.
(CROSSTALK)
Login or Register to post comments.
Matthews and Buchanan are more hairball than hardball. They're too stupid to grasp that every country - including the US - has to be held to the same standards, or that "One rule for us, and one rule for the US" is hypocrisy.
If the Gang Of Four - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelch, Rice, Gonzales - aren't held accountable, it will only prove to Al Qaeda that they were right and will encourage more muslims to support them.
--not only to watch but to read transcripts of his show. On the one hand he gives Michele Bachmann a well-deserved slap-down; one the other hand just yesterday he said Palin is "the real deal." Clearly he thinks his influence is so great he can mold public opinion by being controversial and reality be damned. He's just looking for some juicy "great stuff." What a phony turd.
matthews and buchanan are part of the hypocrisy
they are too weak to face the truth, so they
would rather bury their heads in the shit they
wallow in. it's time the gop and all it's
asinine useless excuses for righteousness
move out of the way......the right thing to
do now is face our disgrace from the bush
administration and investigate and prosecute
when it comes to that.
criminals and bringing them to justice is going to "tear the US apart"??? Wow, talk about being a Banana Republic! To follow the logic of Mathews and Pat Scumcannon, everyone that is a prison for any criminal act should be released, given a pardon, and forgiven so as not to "tear the US apart".
It's amazing that all these hacks admit that torture is illegal, but don't want to prosecute anyone. How noble of them.
This is a toxic-gov. pattern from 1932, and Prescott Bush on to today.
Because of the history of this mob/MAFIA, and non-prosecution, I very sadly fear that the flu, and/or some other mob-manufactured-crisis, will erase the war crimes from our dumbed-down unconsciousness. It's going to take the rest of the world to do it. Remember Kissenger the master-mind behind the neoNAZIcons lives in luxurey near Central Park in NYC. Hasn't suffered a bit.
say us conservatives are paranoid.
Blowjob bad,
Torture good.
support Clinton like they are/have Bush? Here I thought Bush was from a different political party. Never know it listening to the Dems.
One in the same party. United the party stands, divided Americans fall.
Yes.
They're (Washington) all on the same side. They have the population divided as they march forward amidst the din of squabbling citizens.
Many Americans would probably support vigilantes, but, guess what, they're illegal (for good reason). You have laws and proper ways to enforce them. That's what America used to be all about.
used to be about, was a good bit of vigilantism, not how they view it in now-a-day terms of taking the law into their own hands, but of private citizens arresting people and taking them to jail, and also of stopping a criminal with a small bit of fast moving lead, look at the old western towns you had one or two officers to patrol a area hundreds of miles across, on horseback, if you were out in the country did you hit up the smoke signal and send a 911 or did you grab your rifle and deal with it?
Yeah, that worked in the Olde West, but I'm not sure you'd want gangs of vigilates in your neighbourhood today. I know I certainly would not.
prefer that, than gangs of criminals. Such as what we have in a large portion of our cities. Look at LA for example.
What if Moanica used her teeth?
Personally, put me down for the former.
On a fair teevee show, Matthews would point out that both Turley and Buchanan supported holding President Clinton accountable for violating laws.
This from a column written in 1998 from one Patrick J. Buchanan:
Ain't the google a bitch, Pat?
Excellent work.
busted!
Would you like duck sauce with your crow Mr. Buchanan, or are you to busy choking on your HYPOCRISY!
Turley has had it right from the get go.
When we equivocate. When we decide, "Well, this time its okay... because they said we had to" we open ourselves up rife for abuse.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you are a nation that supports laws, that fights against the evils of the world, and kangaroo courts, and Banana Republics, if you refuse to stand by even your own laws that you wrote.
He's right that the novel thing here is that its "Americans" who are going to go to trial. We have not shirked from bringing others to justice for these crimes in the past.
And the idea that we should just move forward is the worst crime of all, because it ensures that they will have gotten away with it, and will do so again, because THEY CAN.
one thing that Turley is wrong about is using 9-11 as an excuse for bad behaviour. You are moral or you aren't and nothing except brain damage or a personal decision will change that.
Ilove Professor Turley and can easily see him on occasionally, as an expert as Rachel and Olbermann do.
But to be played for show by and between Pat and Chris, who obviously can't face the real game of hardball Turley pushes for, is a waste of Turley's valuable time and waters down the more serious underlying issues.
Professor: stay vigilent -from afar, and from a higher plateau, to keep our values out of their trash cans.
You know Chris and Pat, it is too bad Bush doesn't agree with you on prosecuting torture. he stated that what the "bad apple" US soldiers did at Abu Gharab was terrible and threw them in jail, even though Bush personally ordered them to do those things.
So there it is Pat and Chris. There is your US precedent for torture prosecutions of our own people.
What the screamers on television and radio just don't understand is that the decision to prosecute is not made by the people, it's made by the law. If you violate the law, you are charged and tried. The people are represented by the jury which, hopefully, will not stick a finger up to see which way the wind is blowing. The pitchforks and torches crowd should not be such a threat that the law is ignored.
Nixon should have been charged and tried. Bush and Cheney should be investigated and if there is probable cause to believe a law has been broken, they should be indicted and tried. If found guilty, then, and only then, President Obama can exercise his right to pardon and send them home.
The law must apply equally regardless of the threat from the likes of Beck, Coulter or Palin to lead a popular uprising. Speaking of that crew, have they broken laws about threatening the President and are being let off because of who they are?
Why is Buchanan even considered to be relevent? He's a dinosaur who's time in the public arena, has long since passed!
All of the neocons days have passed, with the exception of the bigots and evangelical imbeciles down south.
This is pure Orwellean corporate-state sponsored terrorism. Nothing more, nothing less.
exactly.
he's one of those twisted souls who gets off on the thoughts of brutalizing captive prisoners. he repeatedly invoked '24' when these accusations first were revealed; and he continues to falsely and deliberately invoke that bullshit 'ticking timebomb' scenario that has been discredited by those who actually have a background in these issues.
did you see bob baer on last week who had to sit thru what was one of the most retarded segments in recent weeks. baer emphatically said 'torture does not work'; and tweety would reframe the question and come back with, 'well, what about this scenario' -- again and again; the moron even invoked 'the manchurian candidate'. but then, everything tweety 'knows' seems to emanate from some stupid movie he saw in his formative years.
Why call him tweety? Does that mean we like him and think he's cute? The guy is a corporate asshole doing what his corporate masters want to let bush/cheney/neocons escape justice. Every one of these war crime apologists are just as guilty as the original war criminals because they are trying to whitewash evil. It can't work, we can't let them for the good of the country and the world.
You know, there was a poll in 2007 that found 69% of Americans considered waterboarding torture. This newest Gallup poll referenced in this exchange on "enhanced interrogation" seems to have played with language and not been as specific as it should've been. Has anyone read the whole thing or looked at its methodology? And any theories as to why it was non-specific? Is Gallup comprised of Villagers, or what?
I think that is what is called "Manufactured Consent"
I was listening to the radio the other day.
It was playing one of the deciders speeches on torture.
I've been looking for it. But I can't find it.
On it, the decider said that he would prosecute war crimes.
He was talking about Iraqi's.
At the end of the speech, he said that we would prosecute all warcrimes, "even if they were just following orders."
I got this from the Scott Dick show on KRXA.
I think it was Wednesday. Around 4:30-5 pm.
I posted it just the other day (twice). Will look for it. It's on YouTube, but where? On it.
--->FOUND (good thing I saved to favourtites):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkzUGguIKWA
(I see destroying their own oil wells, Bush considered a war crime, but... )
We (America) destroyed the oil wells.Halliburton made a fortune putting out those fires
One wonders what Chris Matthews' motives are.
Apologizing, appeasing for "our" torture because we're the "good" guys?
Jack Bauer/24 -- a frackin' fiction, Chris! -- always knew that he'd face punishment for what he did. Cripes, even the fictional anti-heroic Jack Bauer has better morals than the apologists for Bush's torture.
One wonders what Chris Matthews' motives are.
Money, money, money, fame, money, money, power, money.
Repeat often about most of them.
Matthews is arguing with Turley, a very smart person that is completely out of Matthew's league. If matthews isn't spitting on someone, he is most likely putting his large foot in this mouth.
I remember one Mexican president prosecuting the former one for fraud and they were both PRI. There seems to be a group of people that regard almost any head of state as some sort of divine figure that should never be accountable. These sorts were appalled that after years of brutal repression the people executed Ceaucescu (sp?). They can't understand why people would go after the deposed Somoza. Of course, they don't have any problem with invading Panama and carting off their head of state for drug running nor allowing Saddam Hussein to be hung for his many crimes. When heinous crimes are committed by heads of state they ought to be punished no matter what country they're from. The only exception is if some sort of immunity is the only way to get a brutal dictator to go into exile (e.g., Idi Amin).
If an administration decides to prosecute officials of a former administration it can undoubtedly find some laws they broke. Unfortunately, that is true of anyone living in this country but we don't give them walk when the willingly commit a serious crime: we put them on trial and submit the judgement to a jury. If that process is good enough for 99.99999% of the population, why should we immunize high government officials?
Because they ARE part of the corporate oligarchy. Laws are for little people, mere mortals you silly liberal.
Were you expecting justice or something?
Former Leaders is a Banana Republic thing...
That is the same sort of smoke and mirrors they were playing when they were in power. Now they are projecting their own characteristic on the Obama administration's processes of applying the rule of law to violations of torture laws. They are claiming that only a backwards and oppressive government, which they describe by ethnocentrically laden rhetoric to rile up the crowds, would go after their own leaders.
The reality: The "Banana Republic" existed, 'til terminated by the American electorate last fall, with the boosh administration's governance. The boosh administration carried on the business of the U.S. Government accordance with the characteristic of a Banana Republic.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-banana-repu...
It's time to end that corporate oligarchy. Americans must not let it continue.
Ok I give up. We won't prosecute Bush for torture because it would tear the country apart. That will make the republicans and the democrats happy.
But can we prosecute him for sending us into a war we shouldn't be fighting? Maybe for shredding the constitution? I mean, there's evidence a lot of crimes were committed. Did Kucinich's impeachment proposal even mention condoning torture as one of the crimes?
for the law and for our governmental offices. People like Pat Buchanan and Tweety don't care about that, but if our country is to have any integrity, then criminal scumbags like George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld must be prosecuted for their eight-year crime spree.
They deliberately confuse worship of scumbags like Bush with respect for the offices they abused. It's called propaganda.
This court was set up to prosecute cases like these where Nations refused to prosecute primarily Civilian Leaders who Authorize use of Torture and other Crimes against humanity.
Clinton signed on to recognize this Court and Bush Canciled Clinton's agreement. Bush and his administration have supported the ICC to prosecute other Governments Officials for their crimes.
McCain's afraid, now, after his Military Commissions Act was passed that he could be prosecuted along with Bush because he Gave Bush and many others immunity from prosecution for what the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled as WAR CRIMES in Hamdan Vs Rumsfeld. As well, The MCA gave Bush the ability to define Torture for his Administration. The MCA was and is a LAW passed in a Criminal Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice; McCain is just as guilty of War Crimes and Torture as anyone else and so are every person in the Congress who voted for that LAW, Democrat and Republican.
Naturally they do not want an Independent Prosecutor on their Trail.
Cogito ergo sum.
Huh?
Cogito is a Cuban cocktail made from rum. I think he's trying to say "I want sum Cogito."
what Chris Matthews motives are for being against laws and accountability.
some of his 'friends' would be prosecuted.
For notoriety and money.
Why wasn't anyone saying we shouldn't torture? Where the hell has Matthews been? C&L and many other thinking persons sites have been saying that for years.
Because of ticking mushroom clouds and the like. If we didn't torture, we would be like Ostriches with our heads in the sand.
That certainly is the truth. The corporate bubble these cretins like Matthews live in is infuriating!
That damn conservative Buchanonon doesn't help things either.
a large part of Mathews identity is based on his thinking that the "U.S. Government" is exceptional. Proving otherwise exposes his false identity.
Mathews is a complete dumbass, remember this is the guy that saw the shrub on the deck of a carrier and had impure thoughts over shrubs codpiece. Why this piece of shit has a job doing anything is beyond me.
I stopped watching tweety and the other right wing BS. Same ol same ol..BUT...how about Jonathan Turley for SCJ??????...can't think of a better choice.
I second that motion.
Never happen. Obama has been such a huge dissappoinment to me so far. He is fixated with all of the Clinton republican-lite flunkies from the 90's. You know, the same crowd that screwed the American people on behalf of the criminals on Wall Street. Why on earth would any real progressive have that fascist piece of shit Larry Summers as their chief economic advisor, when you have guys like Paul Krugman around?
And the fact he let so many of those useless pieces of shit in the Senate vote against the American people yesterday (in the Wall Street continues to rape main street saga), makes me wonder about his committment to "we the people."
Bush may have been a psychotic fascist pig, but when there was legislation benefitting the top 2% at stake, he ALWAYS got the votes, and with much, much smaller majotities!
If Obama was really for the people (like FDR), he would have told these blue-dog assholes that they could expect primary challenges if they didn't support the people on repealing the 2005 legalized loansharking act for banks.
This is not one of those "we want our leaders not to be mindless rubberstamps" like the republicans issues.
If a democrat cannot see the injustice of billionaire bankers (who are personally responsible for destroying the American people) getting trillions in bailouts from those same people in order to maintain their billionaire status, and then using those same funds to pay-off politicians to defeat legislation to help keep the taxpayers in their homes, then they can go to hell and rot! I hope everyone of them loses next time.
I for one, am sick and tired of having democrats shit on my head, and tell me its the newest style in baseball caps!
Although I would have Mr. Turley at the top of my list as a liberal; I expect Obama to pick another repuke-lite flunky leftover from the Clinton era, and shift the court further to the right.
We are so very lucky we did not let people like McCain and buchhannon get in the Oval Office these guys are just idiots and liars.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse even if some lawyer gave you bad advice. In this case the advice was given to meet the expectations of the people seeking the advice. They were paid well to give the advice the president wanted even though they knew it was wrong!
That is why they should be prosecuted!
Being the only honest person on the show?
of all of these stupid discussions on TV fake news shows. It is a cut and dried issue - there is no gray area. We have LAWS, the laws were Broken > investigation / prosecution is required! It's not like it's just a nice thing to do if we feel like it.
The fact that these stupid discussions continue ad infinitum is ample evidence that our government is very, very broken and that our Constitution and way of life cans only be resurrected by We the People.
Tweety should just shut up and listen to what Jon Turley says. In fact, Tweety should just go away and let Turley have the time slot!
how is it buchanan has any credibility at all? and who here thinks "the country will be ripped apart" ? is that the new repub/rightwing meme? and y do matthews & buchanan yell so loud all the time...jonathan turley isnt yelling...seems like a big mess to me and the obama admin has some seriously sober decisions to make...
Like when the country was ripped apart during Clinton's trial for a blowjob?
Obviously, that was much more serious.
Good god these neokooks are freaking stupid!
So much for Steven Covey's "there are absolutes and there is no such thing as situational ethics"
This line comes from 7 habits of highly effective people which is a horrible book so full of shit it comes with a diaper for its jacket cover. The author Steven Covey is a darling of conservatives because of his embracing of "values" and "principle centered leadership" (another one of his titles).
I always felt that statement was bunk as I watched conservatives rationalize just about anything, in contradiction of their own principles, depending on the situation.
Steven Covey is a FAKE and so is anyone else who wraps themselves in "principles" and "values".
Would that include our evangelical/christian friends?
Oh say it isn't so!
They just love the baby Jesus, just hate everyone else.
I had the task to evaluate new "Covey" training for Navy civilian managers as the NAVSEA HQ Training Manager. Steve Covey had developed a personal relationship with the (christianist) Admiral I worked for. The course was Total BULLSHIT, incredibly insulting to anyone who had actually managed something. I was able to get the downline managers up in arms and killed the intiative.
Zotz.
You are a breath of fresh air that you know this. My Dad was a CEO who really liked Covey's BS and sent his executives to Colorado or somewhere for his BS "training". Of course, me being his son I received the complete collection, and a calendar. I swear to you some of his lines are not even correct or logical English. He is making up 10 dollar words and dangling them over people's heads.
This guy was so highly effective you know what he left out of his book 7 habits of highly effective people? The Eighth Habit. Yea that mo fo is so highly effective he forgot one of his important habits and had to write a sequel.
Skinny people don't buy diet books. Happily married people don't buy dating books. From my experience, middle-managers reading self-help business books fall into the same category - and are suspect.
I've never caught a highly-effective person reading the 7 habits of highly effective people.
Highly effective is one of covey's made up phrases. My Dad was really successful at business several times over and surrounded himself with very talented people. I don't know why he embraces such stupidity. He's a sucker for the word "leadership" and Covey repeats it again and again.
"The enemy of the best is the good." Steven Covey
It’s very frustrating for me, when I go into a pseudo-corporate atmosphere, to see middle-managers substituting management and leadership for the catch-phrase of the day. If I hear another idiot telling somebody to “think outside of the box” or “work smarter, not harder” I think I’m going to just walk out.
The most talented and successful people I’ve ever worked with already know their jobs. If they happen to also manage others, they realize the worth of the other talented and successful people they manage. No poster on the wall stating drivel about leadership and initiative is going to change what these people do. And no self-help book regurgitating psycho-babble is going to make anybody a better manager.
It’s been said that those who can’t do, teach. I’d much rather work with those who don’t need to be taught – and not with those who must be taught by those who can’t do.
For Mathews, politics is ALL about personality and popularity – not policy.
He will gush homo-erotically about Bush’s codpiece just as soon as he will chastise Obama about his dog. There’s no telling what position he will espouse on any given matter, but you can be sure that position will end up being the intellectual equivalent of a HS class-president debate.
TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. We were part of the world that opposed torture, signed the Geneva Convention, and we were a proponent of indicting those responsible for torture.
NOW, all of a sudden, we're going to put a smoozie name on it..."enhanced interrogation"....ignore the Geneva Convention because it will upset our apple cart and 60% of Americans think "it's ok to torture if it's guys like Al Queda and you are going to get some information that you THINK is going to save American lives..."?
Are you F*CKING NUTS!! Do you even hear your own logic??
This is absurd!! WE MUST proceed with investigations and criminal trials if and when they are appropriate. From what we have learned recently, and known since the beginning, we have some ghosts to chase out of the closet, and they go ALL THE WAY to the top (or the bottom, whichever you like to use).
To hell with buchanan. SCREW this nation if we sit on our fat hands and ignore this, and we better not let the trainees from Abu Graib be the only Americans who pay for their crimes against humanity.
This pisses me off so bad. OF COURSE WE NEED TO PROSECUTE!!! GO, NOW!!
I don't care that Navy SEALS use waterboarding as a part of their training. Great......or whatever. They don't think the instructors are going to kill them either, do they? A little difference here, or maybe not.
This is such a lame logic chunch of shit.
And this "banana republic" thing is going to make me throw up. It fits right in with "support the troops" and "cut and run" and all the other horse shit slogans than over simplify this whole mess. Jonathan Turley TRIED to explain to tweety what a banana republic was, but tweety was too attached to his mouth piece to listen, and he knows it all anyway. THESE ARE CRIMES!! Dumb shit!!
If torture works why didn't they find out where Saddam's WMD's were hidden,When they tortured him
I am a staunch Obama supporter, but I don’t believe it’s “looking to the past” to ENFORCE the LAW. Since WHEN is NOT enforcing the law an acceptable option in AMERICA? It is “ignoring the law” to choose to ALLOW LAWBREAKERS TO GO UNPROSECUTED FOR THEIR CRIMES. Since WHEN is the POLITICAL ramifications of prosecution an acceptable or relevant argument?
WHERE does President Obama draw the line when it comes to IGNORING illegal acts? Is it EVERYONE in AMERICA who broke the law during Bush’s/Cheney’s reign; or is it ONLY those who were participants in AIDING and or ABETTING Bush and Cheney? Since WHEN is someone who aids and abets a crime not subject to CRIMINAL prosecution?
The precedents that President Obama would set in failing to hold Bush administration appointees and or employees legally accountable for their illegal actions if FAR MORE DANGEROUS TO AMERICA’S FUTURE than whatever POLITICAL COST we might pay.
How can a Constitutional Law Professor advocate IGNORING the reasons that America was founded as a NATION OF LAWS instead of a NATION OF MEN?!
President Obama is WRONG to PREVENT the prescribed enforcement of our laws. In making the argument that “we have more pressing matters to consider”, he is making the SAME ARGUMENT to IGNORE our laws that the Bush administration made to VIOLATE them. The ends DO NOT justify the means!
I will still give him so more time, but my take is that Obama does revere the rule of law, he just revere's the re-election of Barack Obama more.
This could get ugly, and ugly voters vote republican.
heat of the issue of torture by characterizing it as a mistake the prior administration made as one he would obviously not make and then he effectively put it where it belongs, in the Department of Justice.
He also shot down the right wing for good on this issue because he
de-politiced the notion of going after Bush and Cheney (my bet is Cheney because Boosh was just the destable dunce (unlike Ronnie Reagan, the amiable dunce) by turning over the matter to the Deptartment.
Unless one is willing to believe that Eric Holder is an Attorney General in the mold of Alberto Gonzales who'd willing trashcan the case and do it in our face, there will be prosecutions.
And it will take time for (any attorney) the Attorney General to get his case together, especially if he wants his charges to stick or the evidence gives the Department very good leverage.
Of course there will be those whose hate for Obama will lead them to other detractions regardless of the known or unknown facts existing.
How long has it been since the election of this president who arose from humble beginnings like the majority of the people? And the naysayers of whatever persuasion can, with certainty, rant they know exactly what his motives are?
The middle class is in civil rights struggle now but they have not yet realized it, and history says those can take a long, long time!
..... Tweety would be all over their shit!
That's why I quit listening to his chirping years ago.
Me too! Much better for the blood pressure. And besides, its more fun to go leftwing blogging and read the comments of the reality based community.
Like Media Matter's says, "we watch Fox, so you don't have to."
I really appreciate that.
And much less yellow.
a real investigation ... it would lead to the elite (PNAC) and their involvement with 911 ... the people would want their heads for all the killing ... and the elite that control the government is not going to allow that to happen ... that's why all the spin in the corporate media ... they want to keep the sheeple under control ... so they talk this bull about dividing the country ... torture is only for those that want to "hurt us" ... It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people that completely and totally fall for the propaganda ... the only way a real investigation will take place is in some other country ... the fact that the are talking about having a "hearing" about the obvious shows they (DOJ) has no intentions what so ever of having a independent prosecutor with subpoena power to take the case. Our only hope is a foreign government to do what we should be doing ...
Always seem to write in long, almost unbroken sentences? Maybe their tinfoil hats are too tight.
ever notice how non-objective non-rational people who don't question and don't think, never counter with facts and logic, they only use hyperbolic and ad hominem attacks?
it's so much easier to make fun than make sense
was the first time I felt the 'hole in my gut' that I am feeling again in watching US Government 'sponsored' crime getting a freepass.
President Obama is smart enough to know that setting precedents is what law is all about and the Nixon precedent followed by all the excuses why the Government can do what it does has got us to the point that we are stained with the designation as a 'torture state'.
The Nazi-fication of my country is one reason I avoid the term 'homeland' as in 'Homeland Security', growing up watching John Wayne WW2 movies, the only people that used the term 'homeland' were Nazis, the original source of Bush-money.....hmmmm
Jonathan Turley = American Patriot
Chris Matthews = American Collectivist
Pat Buchanan = Smart guy but defends stupid people
I'd like to see our DOJ return to blindly enforcing the law rather than selectively prosecuting political opponents as it did during the Bush administration. But how can we be CERTAIN that will be accomplished if the DOJ is prohibited from prosecuting those in the CIA who were just "following orders"? I wholeheartedly want ALL of the people who formulated, authorized and gave the orders to be held accountable, but doesn't NOT going after those who just "followed orders" eliminate their GREATEST INCENTIVE for giving up ALL of their bosses? Can't the smaller fish then SELECTIVELY CONTROL and or GREATLY INFLUENCE which bigger fish DO and or DO NOT get prosecuted? If the little fish have no PERSONAL LEGAL STAKE in telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, aren't they vulnerable to internal and external political and career pressures that would influence who they DID and or DID NOT incriminate? I'm sorry, but I believe that if EVERYONE isn't prosecuted, we will have no way of knowing if EVERYONE who was GUILTY was PROSECUTED.
I don’t want to have to TRUST in the HONESTY of ANYONE ANYMORE. And NOT prosecuting EVERYONE is, in my humble opinion, creating an environment that gives the BIGGER fish a better chance of getting away.
Obama so far has been disappointing at best with his choices and picks for important government positions.
He's also been timid and weak in getting Democrats to support the legislation he's pushing for, like the banking reform. The Senate vote that defeated such an important piece of legislation is unforgivable. Dick Durbin is right, the FUCKING banks own the government.
It's amazing the kind of vermin that comes out from under the rocks when it's time to turn them over for real reform... makes me sick! I say get all Democrats who voted against the bill out of office, all 15 of them, and vote for someone who will do as you tell him.
Never forget!
i too would like things to move more aggressively,
but not responding and only reacting is unhelpful.....
and who do you suggest will fill their shoes.
names please....another talker and no real action.
criticism is fine, but think before you blurt
out. we are working toward solutions and people
with your rhetoric are not helping....
if you want change now...work for it and stop
filling the air with useless dribble.
the you in this response is not personal, but
for all those who react without reasoned convictions.
When Pat Buchanan says investigations "..will rip this country apart". Which country is he referring to? The country that our Founding Fathers envisioned or the country that PNAC-NWO are trying to create?
Rightwingers are sado-masochistic by nature. They always want to defame, beat, discriminate, and do any other negative thing they can conjure up. I am not shocked that Buchanan thinks "enhanced interrogation" is okay. They are so full of shit.
Jonathan Turley for the Supreme Court!!!! Wouldn't that get the right wing-nuttery even nuttier?
That's why we need to push hard for Obama to nominate Turley
so there will be a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth
John Dean would also be an excellent choice.He's been calling a spade a spade for over 30 years now.
When he said this is not a Bananna Republic!
That is true NOW,however not true from 2000-2009.
I'm not so sure about that. If this gets swept under the carpet, you'll always be a banana republic to me. (But maybe you don't care?)
Why don't we ask the Republicans if someone broke the law whether they should be prosecuted? Lets spend millions investigating a SITTING President for a land deal in Arkansas, that over seven years morphs into a semen drenched dress ,taped phone conversations and what the definition of is is.
Oh wait, War crimes in rinkie dink stuff! Invading another country without provocation or reason is small potatoes compared to lying under oath about extramarital sex, that's where Clinton fucked up, going under oath in the first place. Doesn't everyone know that as soon as you have power in Washington you can't be held accountable for anything?
Two different sets of rules, for Democrats it's they must be held accountable to the rule of law! For Republicans it's hey, it's in the past we don't want to dredge that up, it happened, nothing to do about it now.
I'm gonna try that defense, Sorry your Honor, I shot Rush as he squeezed out of that restaurant, but you know, that was in the past... old news, I'm looking forward, he's dead can't undo it, why make us all suffer through thinking about the fact he's dead and just let me go on about my business, I mean the past is the past right?
Chris Matthews = toolage, in its purest form. Always.
What's going to happen when a gang of high school kids waterboards the school nerd?
Just a bit of fun? Move on?
"BUCHANAN: I think it would be terrible for the country."
Why? He never says why. Why would it be BAD to enforce the laws we wrote? Punish criminals in this country that the rest of the world are gunning for?
next time i hear a tv anchor quote a poll about torture and say 40% or 60% don't want prosecutions, i want to tear my hair. do u really think the the judiciary should run based on the popularity of opinion. why is polling giving any credence? what does a layman know or understand about this issue and the imperatives, legal and moral, to make an assessment.
thought experiment: 100% of criminals polled felt that they should be severely scolded, maybe spanked twice and sent home. shall we rewrite the law?
what needs to be done, needs to be done, however unpalatable a majority feel.
liberals should not be sucked into this talk of polling numbers. it is a distraction. there is no point in proving to the right that more people want justice served. steer the conversation to real issues. was it torture? was it legal? who is responsible? what is the legal response? period.
MATTHEWS: Why was this country so silent on the possibility that war crimes were being committed in this country for eight years?
TURLEY: Well, unfortunately, that was part of the distortive effect after 9/11. And quite frankly, we lost our bearings.
Why am I reading this so differently from everyone else? I don't think he's questioning Turley's motives. I think he's asking Turley why America seems so indifferent to the fact that we tortured. Why is it not a legitimate question?
It is Buchanan that brings up the opinion polls aspect. (And we do seem to be losing this debate on the larger scale. I watched somewhat dismayed the other day as John Stewart -- if I understood him correctly -- told Cliff May that we should just admit we made a mistake and move on, no prosecutions -- he also said that he thought the audience had come to like Mr. May whereas I found him utterly detestable.) Turley rightfully points out that, regardless of its popularity, it is a crime.
But again, while I find it sometimes frustrating to listen to a Matthews interview or watch his show, I don't see why everyone thinks he is questioning Turley's motives. I could see Rachel Maddow asking him the same thing -- maybe it would just "sound" different coming from her.
first of all,"necessity" can be used to justify anything.as professor turley has steadfastly argued in many previous forums,the bill of rights,the equal protection clause of the us constitution,the geneva conventions,and all the rest of it are ABSTRACTIONS,DAMMIT.PEOPLE WITH POWER,INFLUENCE,AND MONEY CAN SKATE AROUND THEM,IF WE ALLOW IT.however,are we going to lie down and allow "special" people to be designated too important to stand trial because the country would be torn apart as a result of their having to face legal consequences? a decade ago,pat "the mad poodle" buchanan sat on some other tv show and sniffed that ken starr had "no choice " but to prescribe impeachment for pres.clinton.
second of all,there is a difference,one would hope,between a show trial in a central american dictatorship,held subsequent to coup,and a formal trial held as a result of a lawful indictment.our criminal statutes are narrowly constructed,and interpreted to protect the rights of defendants-especially in cases involving the relatively few high profile people who are actually in a position to violate the laws prohibiting torture.its no lead pipe cinch any convictions would be obtained-especially when one considers the present make-up of the federal judiciary.
finally,the poodles,flaks and tools braying about trials tearing the damned country apart were less lathered,and anxious-and that includes most lefties for that matter- when the supreme court appointed the boy king to the presidency in the first place.the "legal reasoning" in bush v gore,is pretty basic banana republic stuff,-"do what we say,and nobody gets hurt" how did that work out ?
Prosecute the Enlisted trailer trash...
not the ivy league villains
..even with sarcasm.
The only people convicted so far have been troops. No officers, no spooks, no politicians, no enablers, just enlisted personel. I'm sure the same way they were looking at Iraq with people throwing flowers and kisses and candy, you know partying like the Nazis were just thrown out of Paris in WWII, BushCo figured that no one would notice those pesky rules against torture and what happens to enablers and people who follow orders.
Turley is a better advocate than he would be SCJ (although I'm sure he'd be a great jurist) and definitely the smartest guy in the room.
This has been a banana republic for a long time. Any country that openly flouts its own laws for the pleasure of the leaders is nothing but a dictatorship.
As hard as it is to think about prosecuting the people who followed illegal orders, you have no choice. If the President orders any agent of the government to rape your children and kill your spouse that agent must consider that order invalid as it is illegal and immoral. That is the responsibility of all our military and law enforcement officers. We owe our freedom and safty to the idea that no one should ever follow an order that is illegal or immoral.
Just following orders has NEVER been an excuse for commiting crimes.
Login or Register to post comments.