Jonathan Turley on The Rachel Maddow Show: We're all complicit in Bush's war crimes if we ignore them
As David already discussed, constitutional-law expert Jonathan Turley joined Rachel last night to discuss the fate of top Bush administration figures involved in "harsh interrogation techniques." The White House has indicated that Bush will not be issuing blanket pardons, but the Wall Street Journal later reported that that's because it's "unnecessary" to do so.
Turley makes a critical point in the interview -- namely, that the moral burden of torture is on the backs of each one of us until these people are brought to justice. And it will be profoundly immoral to let them go:
"We have third world countries that when they have found that their leaders committed torture war crimes, they prosecuted them. But the most successful democracy in history is just, I think, about to see war crimes, do nothing about it. And that's an indictment not just of George Bush and his administration. It's the indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime and say it's time for another commission."
Turley lays out a powerful case that's pretty hard to argue with. A wave of reconciliation and forgiveness seems to be sweeping Washington, but sanctioning torture and destroying America's moral credibility around the world is something that can't simply be ignored. I'm not opposed to a commission per se, but the commission MUST be granted sweeping investigatory powers and a mandate to prosecute any and all wrongdoing found to have been committed. Anything less is unacceptable.
Full transcript below the fold:
(h/t Heather)
MADDOW: Yesterday, 14 lucky convicts were pardoned by President Bush, thanks to Article 2, Section 2 of our Constitution, which gives the president the right to basically pardon anyone he wants. And you know what? Pardon-seeking makes for strange bedfellows. With about 56 days left of the Bush administration, it's time once again for the RACHEL MADDOW SHOW's "Lame Duck Watch," because somebody's got to do it. Meet John Edward Forte, first man we're going to talk about today. A Grammy Award-winning rapper and former producer for the rap group, "The Fugees." He was caught in 2000 with two briefcases filled with $1.4 million worth of liquid cocaine. So who was advocating for Forte's release? Lauryn Hill? Wyclef? How about Carly Simon and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah? Two of a kind. It turns out that Forte and Carly's son, Ben, became BFFs in prep school, and she has been lobbying several politicians on Forte's behalf, including Sen. Hatch. Forte will walk out of federal prison next month after serving half of his 14-year sentence. I bet you can't guess who Bush will not be pardoning, though. How about former administration officials involved in harsh interrogations and detentions of terror suspects? And when I say harsh interrogations, yes, I mean torture. According to the "Wall Street Journal" White House officials say they don't believe they have to pardon anyone that the Justice's Department torture memos make such pardons unnecessary. You remember those memos, right? Part of the Bush administration's unofficial game plan to move the goal posts until the kick goes through. Now, the way this works in the case of torture that the goal post moving was to dismiss the Geneva Convention and other laws by using the veneer of serious legal scholarship to create an illusion that these near-death interrogation tactics and understanding executive power were somehow legal, somehow legitimate. So, the kick is up and apparently, it might be good. They have - they may be getting away with this by having used this legal rationale that makes no sense on its face and that nobody believe they were trying to get away with. It is an old trick. It's first publicly enunciated by that pioneer of high crimes and misdemeanors, Richard Nixon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD NIXON, FORMER UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: The question here is has the administration effectively gotten itself off the legal hook by asserting that because the president has done it, it is not illegal? Joining us now is Jonathan Turley, who is a professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University. Professor Turley, thanks for joining us again. Nice to see you.
JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY: Hi, Rachel.
MADDOW: So the White House says now, at least to the "Wall Street Journal," that they are not likely to pardon anyone who might have implemented or taken part in these torture policies because they believe that their Justice Department memos excuse them, so there's no need to pardon anyone. Are you buying their reasoning?
TURLEY: No. I don't believe that anyone seriously believes in the administration that what they did was legal. This is not a close legal question. Waterboarding is torture. It has been defined as a war crime by U.S. courts and foreign courts. There's no ambiguity in it. That's exactly why they have repeatedly tried to stop any court from reviewing any of this. And so what's really happening here is a rather clever move at this intersection of law and politics, that what the administration is doing is they know that the people that want him to pardon our torture program is primarily the Democrats, not the Republicans. Democratic leadership would love to have a pardon so they could go to their supporters and say, "Look, there's really nothing we could do. We're just going to have this truth commission. We'll get the truth out but there really can't be indictments now." Well, the Bush administration is calling their bluff. They know that the Democratic leadership will not allow criminal investigations or indictments. And in that way the Democrats will actually repair Bush's legacy because he'll be able to say there's nothing stopping indictments or prosecutions but a Democratic Congress and a Democratic White House didn't think there was any basis for it.
MADDOW: If the Democrats - if we could wave a magic wand and say that the Democrats would decide to indict officials for the torture policies, is there any reason to believe that the John Yoo memos, the torture memos, the Bybee memos - all of these legal reasoning that the Justice Department produced under Bush in order to sort of paper their way to these policies. Is there any reason to believe that would afford them any reasonable defense?
TURLEY: Not in my view. I think those memos are really devoid of any meaningful arguments that would carry weight in a court of law. What Bush did is he went and got fairly extreme individuals from the academy and from the bar that would ratify his absolute view of executive authority. There is a very small number of people, I believe, on the courts or in the bar that would support that view. And so there's not a question, at least in my view, whether there could be an indictable and a prosecutable here. There's no question about that. The question is the intestinal fortitude of the Democrats to stand with the rule of law. And unfortunately, we have many people who campaign on principle but they govern on politics. And I think we're seeing that with the Democratic balloon they're floating by saying, "Let's have a commission, another commission, like the 9/11 commission. And maybe if we find something that can be prosecuted in four or five years, we might do it." Well, everyone in Washington knows that that commission is being proposed so that there would be no serious criminal investigation or prosecution. And now, the White House is calling their bluff.
MADDOW: Draw some bright lines for us here. If - just thinking about this as Americans, not even as people who are concerned with the political ramifications, but just thinking about the safety of our Constitution and our national moral legacy, what are the bright lines that need to be drawn? What would need to be done, and soon, in order to ensure that torture is clearly illegal in the United States, that there's no ambiguity in our law or in our policy around that issue, and that we can once again say we are a nation that does not torture and we can say it without lying? What would have to be done?
TURLEY: You know, Rachel, there has never been a brighter line. This has always been a crime. It's always been a war crime. It's always been immoral. The question is not whether the act is immoral, but whether moral people will stand forward and say, "We're not going to act like politicians for once. We're going to act like statesmen and we're going to stand by principle and we're going to say, 'Yes, let's investigate.' And if there are crimes here, let's prosecute." And I think it's so very, very simple. You know, we have third world countries that when they have found that their leaders committed torture war crimes, they prosecuted them. But the most successful democracy in history is just, I think, about to see war crimes, do nothing about it. And that's an indictment not just of George Bush and his administration. It's the indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime and say it's time for another commission.
MADDOW: Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University. Thank you very much.
TURLEY: Thanks, Rachel.
Of course torture is a war crime and Bush should pay for that but ultimately the worst thing he did was invade a sovereign nation. Hitler invaded Poland and he paid for that stupid decision. George W Bush has yet to pay for his. Turley is right and one of the very few sane voices on television.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
I adore Jonathan Turley. His commentary on Countdown during the past 2 years helped keep me sane.
Barack Obama did not name Jonathan Turley to be our Attorney General.
Or at least a man or woman with Jonathan Turley's Constitutional prowess and ethical standards.
That would have been "change" we could believe in.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
IT leaves him in the running for a Supreme court nomination. That's where Turley really belongs.
What a great idea. I'd love to see him write dissenting opinions. Brilliant.
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
... any clearer than how Professor Turley puts it. We've been mushroomed with spin on how we need 'moral clarity' on the issue.
It's TORTURE. What part isn't clear?
It comes down to rebuilding/restoring America's reputation. It's not just about going forward, but making amends by being serious about correcting our behavior. Isn't this what we're supposed to teach our children? If we make a mistake, we correct our behavior, make amends, and accept the consequences of our actions?
we are war criminals.
patriot act
military commission act
both violate international law.
Some stuff you can't make up!
does NOT repudiate those (both of which he supported in the Senate?), at least, he assumes that criminal mantel from the outset.
Oh, yeah I forgot...that wouldn't be 'centrist,' would it...
between the new administration reversing as many of the most defective policies of the old administration and the new administration spending time, money and political capital on investigations and prosecutions that would tie up government for years, which would you prefer?
Your argument has been used many times over by both sides of the isle as an excuse not to do what is right. It really disgusts me when I see pure capitulation. Are we a nation of justice or not?
Neither Obama nor the Democrats will do anything and everyone knows it. It's time to take the party hats off and realize they are every bit as complicit in these crimes. They are guilty of war crimes and crimes against our Constitution. Torture, Rendition, Murder, Conspiracy, undeclared acts of war on several countries, CIA leak, prison camps, vote rigging, obstruction of justice and retribution to name but just a few.
Will Obama do anything about this? No.
A commission? We've been down that road. That now means cover-up.
we must be true to our principles of justice.
The question is, would we be willing to pay the cost of fighting this battle right now?
With the current crisis, an easily divisible citizenry who can be mobilized around old fissures of hate and racism, and dwindling national resources the "cost" could easily be a second civil war or a coup.
We are on a verge of losing our republic. If the Constitution holds no power then we are a defacto state with illegitimate leaders. I can't emphasize this more.
There are many people who have warned us, and many more who are warning us now, of the dangers our nation is in. It is internal, not external.
Nothing is more pressing than seeking justice. The foundation on which our country was founded is just about all gone. We need only study history to predict what will come next.
The question is are we prepared to go down the old revolutionary route? Our last option "The Second". If not, then justice must be done.
Where are we going as a nation from here? I wonder. All I know is that vigilance is the duty of all good men and women.
1913.
.... I'm just wondering if there is a way to promote justice and not destroy a number of other opportunities the Obama administration is trying to persue judiciously. I don't know if you've ever lived in a civil or post-civil war zone. I have and the lesson I came away with was that each (or all) sides will fight for what they believe is just, but in the end all is destroyed and the process of rebuilding is long and arduous... and never really complete.
Maybe my premise is wrong. Maybe persuing criminal charges wouldn't degenerate into violence. Perhaps it will only degenerate into divisive dysfunction and the Obama admin will be blamed for it.... I don't know. Maybe the citizenry would be completely indifferent. I don't know. You are right, however. We can't just look the other way on torture. It is antithetical to all we believe about our democracy.
I too believe in a peaceful transition just as long as it's heading back in the direction our country and our government needs to be. It's not much to ask for. Liberty, justice and the right of self-determination.
I understand your sentiments and excuse my negativity but in my lifetime I have seen this process take place time and time again. It may be perceived as cynical but I am tired of being lied to by these people.
I've seen the things Obama supports and has signed his name to. (The Patriot Act 2).He is pushing to strip citizens of arms. The implication is that we Americans don't have a right to defend ourselves and the lives of those we love. Some of the things he proposes is why my family left Cuba in 1967.
He wants to give 7% of nations GDP to the United Nations (Global Poverty Act). That's alarming to me, considering our own people are hurting here in the USA today. I have no problem with giving money and support to those in need, but it should not be mandated by the federal government. That to me is to intrusive and dictatorial.
I haven't seen what it's like to live in post -civil war country but I have seen society at it's worst here in the US. I've been through riots and grew up in gang infested areas. It would not be pretty if we had a civil war here but it seems the government is preparing for one.
The Army's Second Second Infantry Combat Battalion has been deployed in the USA as of October 1, 2008. There are several others who have been deployed as well. Why? This is the first time in over 200 years and I'm asking why. A soldier I told about this didn't even know.
I hope Obama will conduct himself in proper Constitutional manner. I hope he is willing to prosecute the war criminals. That would give me a little hope he is a man who will uphold the Constitution.
Happy Thanksgiving weekend!
"The Army's Second Second Infantry Combat Battalion has been deployed in the USA as of October 1, 2008. There are several others who have been deployed as well. Why? This is the first time in over 200 years and I'm asking why. A soldier I told about this didn't even know."
This is the result of a Bush directive, a consequence of the elimination of Posse Committatus. It is a huge miscalculation on the part of the neocons to choose to go down this path, because it sets the US military at war with the American People. Should any branch of the military ever enter into action against the People, two things would probably happen: First, I would expect a very high desertion rate, including desertions with equipment, as soldiers find they cannot fight and kill their fellow countrymen. Second, those who remained would find themselves grossly outnumbered and outgunned (which is the real reason I think that the neocons have been building the private Black Water mercenary army). The only way the Bush regime, or any other despotic regime for that matter, could pull off something like this would be if it were under the subtrefuge of responding to a national emergency. Almost certainly, that emergency would be contrived and executed by rogue elements in our own government. Such a rouse would be effective at compelling subservience or acquiescence only for a very short time...a day or two at most, or until the first shots were fired angainst the People. Then it would be game on for popular insurrection.
We have a large military and a very large collective police force, but they are greatly outnumbered...just by military veterans with combat experience. Add to that 10's upon 10's of millions of citizens who are armed and would not take such a thing lying down. It would be an act of the most profound foolishness to set the military and police forces loose upon the American People. I think the neocons, or any other would-be despots, would get a rude awakening....in very short order. Do you recall how a similar attempt went for the hard-line communists when they tried that in the final days of the Soviet Union? I recall that by the end of it, the Russian Army tanks had surrounded and were shelling the Duma, where the hard-liners had finally taken refuge. The same thing would probably happen here.
It made my day thus far and I couldn't agree more. It's certainly keeps my hopes up. It would be a foolish move on the part of the Establishment to wage war on us, yet they move forward with their implementation and deployments. They must be huge fools or they have plans to destroy what's left of the United State of America. I say the latter is correct.
The mantel will be passed to Obama. Will he lay down the powers Bush and the previous presidents have taken for themselves through the directives? That's the question. I have little hope he will.
Long live the republic!
In "Mr. Bush and the Pardon Power" on 29 November, 2008, the New York Times wrote "The framers envisioned that presidents would be discouraged from misusing the pardon power by the threat of impeachment. But it is a fairly empty threat when they issue pardons in their final days in office."
But the reason that impeachment is never an empty threat to a criminal administration is that impeachment, an act of the legislature, is not pardonable by the executive. The Framers carefully put that in the Constitution, which provides, in addition, only one punishment: permanent removal from any kind of federal office, a punishment which is not commutable. That is probably why the impeachment weapon was used against Secretary of War Belknap, who was impeached (though not convicted) AFTER he left office in 1876.
The impeachment of former Vice-President Cheney, surely the member of the outgoing administration who is most indictable for the high crime of arranging for it to repeatedly break the law, recommends itself to many citizens and more than a dozen Congress members as a potentially edifying example. By trumping the possibility of any presidential pardon or judicial grant of immunity, it would end Cheney's federal government career with satisfying finality. He has come back again and again, as Chief of Staff, author of the Iran-Contra committee's Minority Report, Secretary of Defense and head of black operations for the Bush White House, with consistent efforts to render the executive independent of the legislature, the courts, the law and ultimately the sovereign people of the United States.
Let's liquidate this dangerous precedent BEFORE Mr. Cheney is pardoned for it---or Mr. Obama is driven to invoke it.
Nürnberg was a big old fat waste of time, eh?
False choice. We don't have to choose. We can have both, BTW.
me-oww!
We have just won an election. Almost 1 in 2 Americans opposed President Elect Obama.
We have not conquered America by force of arms so that we can impose war crimes trials on the losers.
The war crimes would be for perpetrators and the guilty. not the losers.
these were war crimes committed by international war criminals, in violation of treaties. We are a rogue nation. Luckily, we did not end up with the violent solution.
These crimes were intricately planned, committed with malice and full knowledge of their criminal acts. A loss by them in an election does not excuse or pardon their acts.
Just because the crims were defeated in an election does not lessen the severity of their crimes, make the civilians killed and maimed any less so, nor the tortured untortured.
Let's put that fucking Thug meme, 'Nation of Laws' to work. It's not "A nation of laws' except for the ruling elite assholes who dragged this
countryentire world through great steaming piles of dog shit. It's a stink we won't be rid of until we see justice is done.me-oww!
... and the government would not be "tied up for years" on the Bush/torture issue. Bush himself is no longer relevant. The issue now is clearing the good name of the USA, by hanging a criminal tyrant. Or jailing him for life. A simple military tribunal could investigate and try him for his international military crimes. After the military trial, he could be rendered to the various states for trial on murder charges. Back page news -- but it's essential that an example be set that a president cannot lie us into wars-for-profit, and cannot torture hapless detainees in the name of the People of the United States.
and not in this country.
me-oww!
I love you too.
I'm an American citizen living (mostly) in Canada for the past several years. I also maintain a small apartment in Manhattan. I voted for Obama and I'm a registered Democrat.
I note you have no complaint when "Bangkok Bob" writes in. Do you just wish me silenced because I disagree with you? How Republican of you.
I knew you'd attack me, because that's just the kind of guy you are. Bangkok Bob isn't cryptic at all about his locale. How Republic party type of you to compare apples to oranges. And accuse me of trying to silence you. I see your comment still stands, so my best laid plans to bring you down have failed.
You remind me of an ex bf, who could spin shit off the most clear, straightforward non ambiguous statements made. eg "The sky is blue" would equal "You suck" in his mind, if it was made during a disagreement.
Happy Thanksgiving.
me-oww!
What makes me "an agent provocateur"? The fact that I frequently disagree with you.
I'm an American. Isn't that supposed to be enough to make a comment?
I generally don't chose to tell any of you anything about me (a policy shared by almost all who comment at C&L), because people like you would attack the messenger, instead of debating the message.
Happy Thanksgiving.
I'm giving you shit. For the last time you
gave me shitblindsided me in a shitstorm.Ok. I feel very even now, if you'd like to truce with me. I'll call Pax first, in the interest of being able to express ourselves freely on our Thanksgiving day.
I mean it -- Happy Thanksgiving. I hope you are happy and surrounded by loved ones today.
:)
me-oww!
is recognize the inherent superiority of my views over yours and I'd be happy to have a truce.
I wasn't aware that you were taking any of this personally. We're arguing over the internet. We don't even know one another. What's to take personally? What's to get even for?
I disagree with most of your comments and will continue to do so. If you take that personally and feel the need to attack, go right ahead. You have my permission.
OK. And it was a shitty fight, that's all, and it was months ago.
I hadn't replied to you since, and I needed to break the ice.
And get my own back :P
me-oww!
Ok, I'll play. I'd choose the investigations because if we don't prosecute the leaders who violate the law and the constitution then everything we stand for doesn't count. Also, if we prosecuted the Bush admin for all their crimes, and won, then all their policies would be suspect and revised anyway.
Many US courts are politicised. Many "blue dogs" won't support prosecutions. Tens of millions of Americans won't either.
Politics is the art of the possible. While we may be able to start investigations and to prosecute a few of the minor players, I do not believe it is possible to successfully prosecute anyone of importance.
Given how much work lies ahead of the incoming administration, I am unwilling to take the risk. I long since got over the idea that "let justice be done if the heavens fall". Moral absolutism fits poorly into the complexities of the US political, economic and social landscape.
The attempt and the failure would be bad, but still may serve to show we won't accept that kind attitude that no one is above the law. To not attempt at all means there is no law. Just power to be abused.
to rescind the 2002 POS legislation than supposedly bans any asshole in the CheneyBushCo regime from being tried for war crimes (part of the planning, also showing knowledge of the depravity of their wet work), and handing them over to the world court, as a signal of regret and sorrow for our actions, and a sign we support the world court once again.
I just don't see not getting these punks at some sort of dock. We won't have a chance at peace until that's done. We've crapped on everyone, and it's our duty to help clean up.
me-oww!
Wrong, we are saviors of the world. [Deleted. I thought you were being sarcastic. You are not posting this kind of flamebaitery here, Bub. I'm taking down your other fact-free pontifications on the board too-Sitemonitor]
and it's in short supply.
Some stuff you can't make up!
... is for good men to do nothing." Obama has said he was interested in an investigation of the Bush administration's questionable actions. If the new administration does not investigate Bush's war crimes, Obama and we who trusted him to do just that are complicit in these crimes because it is as if we approve letting them go without consequences. President-elect Obama, please filfill this campaign promise and INVESTIGATE BUSH.
If Obama does not investigate the Bush Administration's crimes, then we are complicit only if we refuse to hold Obama accountable as well.
But, again, investigation that ends with full accountability for those involved (Democrats, too, sad to say) is a necessity, or this will hang over our heads as we deal with other states and nations.
I agree. But you see what happened with Nixon and his crimes, and how the Republicans and Dems in Congress did absolutely nothing except write a few letters to the Bush administration and set deadlines for a response (many which they ignored) and hold a few hearings on wrongdoings. I fear that after much talk about doing something, Obama will just roll over, and most Americans won't even blink when he does.
Because the Repubs and Dems are on the same side. That side is money.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
These people have something worse planned for us and the world. Research. Research. Research.
Has a picture of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the cover behind bars.
I believe the attorney who wrote the article is Scott Horton. He plays out every possibility of how Obama could move forward on the issue of war crimes/torture etc.
Basically every possible scenario he comes up gets watered down by politics, except a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Torture comprised of NOT Democratic and Republican puppets, but by career prosecutors like Vincent Bugliosi. These prosecutors would have full subpoena power and if evidence was gathered (and Horton makes a good point that we already have all the evidence we need in the public arena), that proved guilt, that these prosecutors could issue indictments and convene grand juries etc.
Rather than having a "Move-on.org" mentality, we need a STOP.org organization to finally resolve these issues of criminality within the highest ranks of our government. Otherwise future administrations will feel they have a green light to push the envelope even further. It's like a bad child testing his/her parents. "If you hit that dog ONE MORE TIME!!!....you're going to your room. Okay. Just ONE MORE TIME...." etc.
And one more thing. I still don't believe we know the TRUTH about the events of 9/11. Too many serious unanswered questions. It's a festering wound of our body politic that needs a good lancing and cleaning in order to heal. And the whole freakin' world knows it. It seems it's only the American public who would like to continue to keep their heads buried in the sand related to this issue.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
We need truth no matter what the cost. If this country is to survive as a nation of laws then this is most vital.
We must restore the rule of law. We must seek justice in the United States of America not turn away from it. Otherwise it leaves us, as a patriotic citizenry, little choice and options for redress. All Americans are in danger of losing what we've treasure most. Our families, our freedoms and our lives.
What will matter then, if we're Democrat or Republican or Independents? Black or white or Brown? We are all Americans at the end of the day and we have a common enemy. Those who have conspired and acted to destroy our Constitution and it's protections. They are public in there intent and yet we sit like good children writing our lists for Santa Claus.
Wake up and smell the tyranny, my friends. There is a coup happening here and we've failed to recognize it.
I'm not optimistic about 'war crimes tribunals' any time soon. I expect what will happen is that the obama administration will unconditionally outlaw torture in its normal meaning without pursuing prosecutions due to 'the need to address current crises.' It could be effective if it's done leaving Bush's legacy even further tarnished.
I would like to see prosecutions for war profiteering.
Apparently she's a war profiteer. With powerful dems being complicit in all of this, it's doubtful they will ever prosecute.
And the Obama Administration and members of Congress allow the Bush Administration to walk on this one, then I think we need to treat them all (including members of Congress who support them) as international pariahs who deserve to be publicly shunned.
Just the way O.J. Simpson has been treated. After he was found "not-guilty" in L.A. I read stories about him going into restaurants and everyone would get up and walk out etc. Of course there were always the few idiots at the golf courses who would fawn over him and want to see the scar on his finger from "the broken glass at the hotel"...
Reminds me of that line from a Bob Dylan song: "Sometimes I think this world is one big prison yard. Some of us are prisoners, the rest of us are guards."
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
http://www.stinque.com/2008/11/26/a-flyingcha...
I fear that any commission set up to investigate the Bush administrations crimes will be about as effective and thorough as the 9/11 commission. That is to say, not at all.
The only way we will ever see any justice come from this is if we allow extradition of these people to the Hague. The people at the Hague will have no compunction in prosecuting them to the fullest extent of international law.
than leading an international charge against bush, is the best approach. Just let 'em come take him and dick away, then say, "Hey, sorry, I'm busy working on fixing your fuck-ups george. Got to hold another news conference and reassure the American people right now..."
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Here here!
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
Quick trial.
Short ropes.
Let them shriek their last sieg heils from the gallows, the way they're supposed to.
Life in a maximum security federal prison for violent offenders would be a punishment worse than death for these criminals.
Concur - capital punishment is too good for these creeps! Let them stew in an 8 x 8 cell that has a tiny window that overlooks a brick wall. No TV, no books except the Koran (haha), no mags except The Nation! Fuck them all. Let them rot in hell, if there is such a place.
Democrats will do nothing because they will get themselves Charged right along with Bush.
That is why they refused to Impeach!
That is why they will do nothing!
Donaldd
Prosecute and Punish all war crimes!
However, the Congress, to cover their own complicity, has complicated some prosecution greatly with the Detainee Treatment Act and Military Commissions Act.
Here is John Dean with KO vis á vis Torture.
Aggressive war is another matter as is domestice surveillance.
The Hague would not restricted by our meddling Congress.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
He is right these people lied to us, played with our fears to get us into a war that was unnecessary , then found our they were torturing people in prisons, illegally spying on Americans, MY GOD WHAT IS GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT AND WAR CRIMES IF THESE THINGS ARE NOT, SHIT I AM LOSING MY MIND THAT THESE PEOPLE CAN GET AWAY WITH THESE THINGS
http://www.barackobamacans.blogspot.com
because for them to work, folks have to admit to their 'sins.'
NOBODY's gonna do dat. Guaran-fuukin-TEED, cher...
Truth, yes. Accountability, yes.
Reconcilliation - no. That carries with it the stink of 'acceptable,' which we know it wasn't.
And, ultimately, Bush should be shown the same degree of understanding and mercy that he showed Karla Faye Tucker, which is to say, none at all.
On the last thread this was brought up. Saying that we need to look forward, Obama's got enough to do, political expedience etc., etc.
Could you imagine how pissed you all would be if McCain had won and stated "I'm not going to prosecute the previous administration for anything?"
Understand, the neo-conservative cabal, the PNAC and their philosophies EXTEND TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
Democrats and Republicans have become one.
... because I specifically said that moving forward was admirable, but that we also needed to hold the previous administration to account for its crimes (and crimes they are, by U.S. and international law).
And I believe we can do both, rather than giving a wash to the past.
The reason there is no interest in investigation is that possibly, there aren't enough innocents to pull it off. In other words I bet you the dems in congress are more complicit that people think.
Don't forget that almost everyone in congress voted for the Patriot Act because they were too frightened of being labeled unpatriotic, particularly right after 9/11. No one questioned the immensity in volume of the Patriot Act, which obviously had been in planning for quite some time. Instead of fighting the military commission act, the democrats could have filibustered, and in light of the MSM, find other ways to inform their constituents, etc, of what was going on in congress.
While I'm not sure of the nuances during the Clinton administration after 1994, I do know that with Bush's time in office, the democrats could have fought oppressive bills much harder than they did, even if they were eventually outvoted (remember the bankruptcy bill and the new medicare bill?). Time and again they rolled over, whether it was fear of a corrupted media or their next election runs, or both.
Yes, unfortunately the democrats are complicit as well, with fear and enabling. There is no other reason I know of that can explain their refusal to impeach and their refusal to arrest those who refused their subpoenas.
I just don't buy that a chunk of legislation that big rocketed through Congress that fast - including the nifty acronym.
That's exactly right. I mean, what else would an investigation like this unearth? Maybe Feinstein's war profiteering?
Nope. There are too many powerful dems who are complicit. Agreed.
The helped remove Cynthia McKinney for speaking the truth about 9/11 they will play ball for the masters that rule them.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
It won't mean a damn thing if the people involved choose not to exercise those powers in the ways they should be exercised.
One of the problems with letting the Bush-Cheney administration's crimes slide is that it effectively sets a precedent, and the next Republican administration will use Rovian tactics as a starting point. Cheney's example will be a model for virulent creeps to come.
If we're not going to legally punish them or hold them to account, at least their reputations should be permanently stained, like Nixon's --
Bush and Cheney: synonymous with dishonest and corrupt government. May their names forever be associated with radical ideology, reckless bad judgement, paranoid secrecy, pillaging the Constitution and fundamental incompetence.
Both of their reputations are pretty much in the sh!tter.
I think that once they are out of office, the ridicule will keep growing until they can't be in public without being heckled. I think this has happened to them already.
That's the least We The People can do if we're not allowed to prosecute (and I believe the dems won't do anything because then they'd be found guilty as well for their complicity, duped or not).
Nixon actually set the precedent when we didn't go after him. Then we get Republican Rovian Tactics.
Bush's precedent will be that the next Republican will just declare a police state at the outset and not even bother with the False Flag attack first.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
received a Presidential pardon. You would have had "us" go after him how?
Moving forward is a great idea. But there is no forward movement unless there is the investigation and prosecution of war criminals.
Like his fisa vote I don't expect anything but vacilation from Obama. I'm begining to think all the change we're going to get is who big brother is. The Constitution is toilet paper. If you start to go down that War Crimes Drive you go past Israel and you can't point at them so nothing is going to happen. It isn't Democrats worried about themselves they are all worried about Israel. Bush didn't do anything Israel hasn't done.
Obama's FISA vote wasn't vacillation, it was capitulation.
Get over it.
When conservatives get over equal rights.
I would really like to see this happen, but let's be honest here: When you have a V.P. and a Sec. of State who also were onboard for the invasion of Iraq, you have to be very mindful that you are NOT prosecuting this President for invading Iraq based on false intelligence, because they will reply EVERYONE believed the intel. at the time. So, for that reason, and the reality of Democratic involvement, the argument should center on something the neocons are SOLELY responsible for and cannot be blamed on others, and that is torture. Even if the penalties for this are minor, they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent if we are to attempt to repair what happened under these war criminals
Radix Omnium Malorum Avaritia
14 months after the attacks
stonewalling
Henry Kissinger appointed
$3million budgeted, final estimate $15 million spent
political cronies on the Commission
testimony blocked
perjury unpunished
NORAD telling 3 versions
President and VP appearing together
No oath
No witnesses
No transcript
Closed sessions.
Limited Scope.
In Your Silence.
Yes. You. Are. Complicit.
Given the entrenched position of the GOP and the fact that 47% of the US agrees with them, it will be hard enough to undo as much of the damage caused by the current administration. Getting distracted with war crimes prosecution is something that should only be done if it pays political dividends.
No one is going to be sent to the Hague. We don't recognize the Hague's authority over American administrations. We don't even recognize the UN's authority in any meaningful way. The President-Elect simply does not have the power to change this.
A hundred and one U.N. resolutions telling the Israeli's to make nice with the Palestinians and garnered a giant "New York Middle Finger Salute!" to the U.N. from Israel and the U.S.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
And a second Amen!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
;)
The investigation has been conducted by the citizens of the United States of America and citizens around the world. We need people willing to prosecute these people. We need to place the flag where it truly belongs.
This is America-therefore, unlawful behaviors must be investigated, and sent before the courts. We have no king. Presidents are not above the law as they seem to believe. The world must know that Bush and his toadies were an aberration and will be punished.
I give it a 4 on my 'hope' meter. When it's time to appoint a new SCJOUS...Turley....now we're talking!
!
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
The final outcome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EJ9VyjCsXU&fe...
Watch all of it.
I think any investigation would need to start with CIA analysts. This would irrefutably nail down the intel. Then you follow the intel up the chain of command - finding out where the intel was "fixed" (see Downing St. memo).
whose computer I'm using right now, has a toolbar at the top of her IE browser that contains shortcuts to Drudge, Rush and Fox News. She's voted Republican ever since she came over from Denmark back in the early 50's.
Yet last night she, my wife and I were watching ET's story of the Obama family and she suddenly said, "Everything that has gone wrong in this country is the fault of the Republicans, starting with him (referring to Bush). He was never ready to lead this country."
That's quite an admission for a lifelong Republican to make.
Of course, there's still the problem with the shortcuts to Fox, Rush and Drudge but I'm working on it.
Anyway, have a safe and happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
JP
http://giveusthisdayourdailtydread.blogspot.com
If the American people sit around and hope Congress is going to push the issue, nothing will happen.
If the American people get together and raise their voices in a shrill call for accountability, maybe something will get done. The outrage will have to make the Iraq war protests look like a campfire sing along.
This "we need to look forward, not backward" kumbaya bullshit will be the death of the rule of law.
Lex Rex!
Concur. If we want change we must participate in the Republic.
I was talking to my Mom yesterday who has spent more than four years of her life in Italy. We were commenting on the level of corruption in the government and comparing it to the US. We figured out what the difference is.
Italians know their government is corrupt. A majority of Americans feel their government is above that kind of behavior, or believe that one party or another has a monopoly on good behavior.
So long as this denial continues, we will slide further into corruption. We will be the world leaders in corruption and dishonesty.
media and the blogosphere, you'd think the "change agents" would plan to address this up front. We know it's not going to happen and this unaddressed precedent will later down the road inflict a fatal wound to the USA, if it hasn't already.
IF this is allowed to stand, I foresee another generation of Gooper thugs carrying this precedent to inflicting deeper levels of fascist hell on this country. They will be well schooled and emboldened by smirky unaccountable unpunished Bushies.
The spineless Dims are complicit in this - it's obvious by their refusal to confront the Chimp. Now the meme is "bipartisanship," i.e., to cover their sorry asses. Also you'll hear about how addressing this will "change the atmosphere" in Washington. The Goopers will unite to protect their noble, patriotic acts in the Woah on Terra; hence Obama won't get anything done.
Sadly, I don't think Main Street gives a rat's ass about it. Those tortured are a bunch of "A-rab terra-rists" so eff 'em. Plus I don't have a lot of faith in a people where the oft-repeated solution to a foreign crisis is, "nuke 'em, bomb 'em, etc." I hope I'm wrong.
I'm happy the election went the way it did - it bought some time. But I don't trust the Democratic Party to stand up for democracy. That's what we have to do.
I have thought one "reasonable" way to present a war crimes trial of Bush, Cheney, et. al is to say, "If they so strongly thought that their approach to war and torture was legal and justified, then they should have no fear whatsoever of defending their evidence and reasoning to a tribunal" in my opinion the trial should be held at the Hague, to give them less wiggle room and to insure objectivity.
Based on what they have said and done I strongly feel that a trial is justified. It would go a long way towards reclaiming or "moral" standing in the world and amongst ourselves.
Here ye!
By the way the Hague is off. Americans are not allowed to be tried there per congressional act from 2002.
Concur 100000000%!
take to the streets as in the 60's in massive demonstrations, moratoriums etc.
It needs to be kept in the public consciousness until something is done.
Massive boycotts on corporations that profitted from the war wouldn't hurt either.
I suspect that more people will find reasons NOT to do this, as it is difficult, inconvenient and just so passe', so boomer.
Perhaps somebody will do it for us; isn't that why we voted for BHO?
We'd still be fighting in SE Asia were it not for the massive demonstrations scaring the shit out of Kongressional Korporate Amerikkka.
If these monsters are not prosecuted and held to account, we will have the same problem as the post-watergate period.
People like Kissinger, Liddy et al - continuing their bid to keep America to their fascist liking: Amerikkka
"What Bush did is he went and got fairly extreme individuals from the academy and from the bar that would ratify his absolute view of executive authority."
What academy is this?
From academia, perhaps?
Or in reference to the hires from Liberty University's law program?
A coupleof notable GOP alums from ANOTHER FU-Fundie University-ORU----------Ted Haggard and Michele Bachmann - Democratic Underground10 posts - 4 authors - Last post: Nov 3, 2006
Some of the ORU law school professors under whom Bachmann studied have been very .... I do know lots of trivia about the ORU law school. ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard... - 58 [ORU is Oral Roberts University]This is a really interesting link.
The president does not have the constitutional authority to remove his own constitutional responsibilities. He cannot pardon himself for any crimes he committed when it is his constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And for the same reason, he cannot pardon everybody who violated the law on his orders, for that would amount to the same thing.
Bush (and Cheney) have broken the law and must be held accountable. Otherwise, the Constitution is meaningless.
If past is prologue, they will do nothing. Viet Nam was war crime heaven, and started fraudulently as well with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Both Democratic and Republican administrations were involved then, and in a couple months the same will be true of the Iraq War. William Calley was responsible for all of the crimes for Viet Nam and Lynndie England will soon be responsible for all of the Iraq crimes. Obama did not say "Yes we will" but rather "Yes we can". He has always been careful with his message.
That's the new phrase for the transition.
"we" have a Democratic majority that has already decided to do nothing substantial about it. Yes, the Democrats will establish a commission to talk the issue to death, or at least talk about it to the point that either everybody gets tired of it or nobody cares, whichever comes first. In the meantime, one of our country's main boasts to the world of the past century..."We don't torture here!" will be history.
Not only are we all complicate if there are no convictions of torturers and war criminals but we will also remain despised by civilized nations and businesses of the world. Which will mean prolonged financial crisis. Convict the war criminals NOW to help save the economy by making America an accepted member of the Rule of Law club of civilized nations again!
"Now, the way this works in the case of torture that the goal post moving was to dismiss the Geneva Convention and other laws (my emphasis) by using the veneer of serious legal scholarship to create an illusion that these near-death interrogation tactics and understanding executive power were somehow legal, somehow legitimate... "
As I understand it, there is no legal maneuver internal to the United States that can void or mitigate the operability and authority of international law or treaties to which we are a signatory, like the Geneva Convention (even with the amendments Bushco has tried to insert). A criminal regime like Bush's can paper their actions however they wish, and a criminally complicit Congress can craft whatever statutory measures they please, but it cannot erase culpibility or liability that applies internationally.
Hitler tried to do the same thing. Under the German legal code in nazi Germany, the atrocities, war crimes and crimes against humanity were perfectly legal. Hitler also by-passed the existing court systems and established his Volks Courts, in order to obtain the stamp of judicial approval for his regime's crimes, wherein he seated toadying nazi sycophants as judges. In spite of attempting to cover himself and Germany in a matle of legal protections, it did the nazis no good come Nuremburg Tribunal time. The guilty were prosecuted, convicted and had punishment meted out to them. Justice was served.
I hold zero expectations that our Congress will arise to serve justice. There are far too many bloody-handed, complicit members, in both parties, to expect otherwise. There is no point in Congress establishing a commission of inquery. They will only use the process to obfuscate and cover the truth, in order to protect themselves from accountability for their own criminal complicity. We don't need another 9/11 commission, whose only purpose is to insult the American People with lies, fabrications and excuses.
I can see good reason for Mr.Obama to keep his plans to himself, until after the inauguration. But, if it turns out that he fails to arise to the occasion, if he abdicates his duty as leader, if he fails to pursue justice, he will be diminishing himself for all time. He will be squandering an ocean of credibility at home. He will be squandering all of his credibility abroad.
Mr.Obama should request the appointment of a team of special prosecutors to see this process through to its unpleasant end. If he cannot summon the will to do this, I would beg that he would at least lend his full and unreserved support to those emerging international actions that are beginning the work of obtaining justice. Just as one of Bush's first acts was to declare our withdrawal from the ICC, Mr. Obama's first act should be rejoining it...as part of his inauguration speech. If we only obtain justice through the efforts of the international community, we will have forfeit a one-time opportunity to begin cleansing a foul stain from our national soul. But, at least justice will still end up being served.
"We're all complicit in Bush's war crimes if we ignore them"
I can agree with that statement up to the point where we are told by our elected representative to go screw ourselves, as is their habitual response to the demands of the People. I would amend the above statement to read:"We are all complicit in Bush's war crimes, if we fail to compel the hired help to bring those responsible for the crimes to justice".
You said: "As I understand it, there is no legal maneuver internal to the United States that can void or mitigate the operability and authority of international law or treaties to which we are a signatory, like the Geneva Convention (even with the amendments Bushco has tried to insert)."
Sorry to burst your bubble but the U.S. long ago tossed out the Geneva Convention along with scores of other international treaties and conventions when it was convenient to do so. Clinton's intervention in the Balkans provides a perfect example. At that time not only were the Geneva Conventions totally ignored, but so was the entire NATO charter. To credit/blame Buschco solely for cowboy diplomacy is giving it too much credit. We Democrats are good at this too.
And before we start buying tickets for war crimes trials, don't forget we've yet to answer for 30+ days of sustained aerial bombing that targetted a sovereign nation's entire civilian infrastructure, a nation that neither attacked nor posed a threat to the United States.
We are still signatories to the Genva Convention. The point I'm making is that choosing to ignore international laws on claims of sovereignty or whatever provides no legal protections for crimes committed.
You're not bursting any bubbles, I know the score. But for what it's worth, the NATO action that Clinton initiated proceeded with UN authorization; the case was made and approvals obtained. More, it established a precedent under intertnational law that holds that if a nation is preying upon its own defenseless citizens, the international community has a right to intervene to protect those citizens if other measures fail. That action stopped an ongoing genocide and eventually produced the conviction of several war criminals at the Hague.
FYI, some of the international efforts I mentioned include the International Red Cross, which has opened a war crimes portfolio against Bushco. This is only the second time in their history that they've done this, the first being with Hitler, when he was chancellor of Germany. The crimes being investigated include the illegal war of aggression initiated against an innocent Iraq.
You are right up to the point when you said: "...it established a precedent under international law that holds that if a nation is preying upon its own defenseless citizens, the international community has a right to intervene to protect those citizens if other measures fail."
And who's to define preying? CNN? Fox? MSNBC? The State Department? By your argument then Bush was authorized to go into Iraq to save Iraqis from a "predator" based on this precedent you say was established by Clinton.
Go back to the Balkans and CNN for a moment and you'll see the situations are quite similar. Who defines "preying?" The media? Christiane Amanpour was the cheerleader for intervention then and the hype about a so-called genocide. Serious ethnic strife and lots of killing? Yes. Genocide, not at all. But it's just a coincidence that Amanpour was married to James Rubin in 1998, who at the time was an Assistant Secretary of State and spokesman for the US State Department.
So I don't accept the "precedent" that you say is established, especially if it's contrary to international law, which it is.
It was and remains a legal precedent. It wasn't CNN or one of the other proganda networks who decided, nor are such things dependent upon their interpretation or blessing. It was the international community, through the UN, which authorized the act. Suppossedly, it was the conscience of the international community that decided... as it always does in the end, what constituted genocide and what does not. As for it whether or not it's a legal precedent, it doesn't depend upon whether you or I agree with it. Precedent is born by actions taken by authoritative bodies, like the UN. Like our own legal system, international law is determined as much by precedent as it is by statute or treaty. For good or bad.
And, you nailed the chief concern, which incidentally is not my argument, but rather a possible pathway of action created by precedent: Bush, if he persuaded the UN that the world community needed to intervene in Iraq, could indeed have used the Clinton precedent to build an internationlly approved UN coalition to invade and occupy Iraq, using as his argument that the international sanctions - in force during Clinton's administration - were resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, as a direct result of the way Saddam Hussein was mal-administering the oil for food program. There were some arguments at the time that he do just that (he wouldn't, of course, because that was the Clinton way, and anything Clinton did was automatically evil). That's the way precedent works. That's also why it is important not to let Bushco + complicit Congress critters get away with their war crimes, not just the torture issue, because doing nothing creates an enabling precedent that future despots can exploit.
What I recall of the media coverage of the Balkans, was an obsessive preoccupation with painting Clinton as a "Wag-the Dog" despot, a man concerned only with fomenting a war, in order to distract attention away from his Monica Lewinski, White Water and whatever other issues the media spent so much time and energy keeping front and center of their veiwing audience's attention. To my recollection, they did their typical piss poor job of coverage and investigation or analyses of any of the issues underlying what was going on in the Balkans. A few flashy film clips, then back to the Clinton bashing. Then as now, a person is a fool if they think they are going to become informed by watching any of the "news" channels. Then as now, the media is, with a few minor exceptions, irrelevent to the process of fact finding and truth telling.
Anywise, time to git. Enjoyed your arguments.
I enjoyed the discussion too and willingly admit that I don't disagree with you much except perhaps with our memories of the Balkans. If it set a precedent as you said, then it's a bad precedent indeed.
You said: "What I recall of the media coverage of the Balkans, was an obsessive preoccupation with painting Clinton as a "Wag-the Dog" despot, a man concerned only with fomenting a war, in order to distract attention away from his Monica Lewinski, White Water and..."
I recall that but only as a very small part of the coverage. What I remember most is major media manipulation of the American people to support the bombing of the civilian infrastructure of a sovereign nation. I daily viewed contemporary war footage juxtaposed with WWII footage of Jews in German cattle-cars. This was all to support the notion that there was an equivalent genocide going on in the Balkans. This was all encouraged by Clinton/Albright/Wesley Clark/CNN cabal.
When it comes to war propaganda, hype, hysteria and lying us into to a war, my only point is that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on it. Democrats are quite skilled at it too.
Cheers! Enjoy your holiday!
Agreed on the media. I had pretty much stopped watching CNN by that time for the exact reasons you are talking about. I detest being lied to, propagandized at, insulted by those who think they can manipulate me. It was during the Balkans war that I finally threw my TV out. Haven't watched TV since, and have gone elsewhere for news.
"When it comes to war propaganda, hype, hysteria and lying us into to a war, my only point is that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on it. Democrats are quite skilled at it too."
Very true. Almost all of the mass-consumed information is controlled by only eight entities: FOX(News Corporation, Inc.), ABC(Disney/ABC Corp) NBC/MSNBC(GE), CBS(CBS Corporation), CNN(Time/Warner Corporation) control all the TV and cable broadcast "news" (plus they own many magazine, newspapers and radio franchises. These 5 corporations own and control ~99% of all media in the country( http://www.wikiprotest.com/index.php?title=Me...
also, - for a visual shocker - see http://www.thenation.com/special/2006_enterta... for a graphic breakdown). There are about 15 other principal players who have the remaining 1% slice of the pie, with the top 3 of that group being: NPR(Corporation for Public Braodcasting - which has been turned into a neocon porpaganda outlet under the Bush regime's mal-administration), Clear Channel (Clear Channel Communications) and the Sinclair Group(Sinclair Broadcast Group).
Except for the token journalism that is done at MSNBC by Olbermann and Maddow, these Corporations operate a unified propaganda cartel that exclusively serves the interests of Corporate America. That's easy enough to pull off, when it only requires 5 + 3 CEO's. They do not serve the public's interest in any way.
The media exists only to manipulate. If you add the companies like Comcast and AT&T to the mix , both of whom are notorious for censoring or making it difficult to view any broadcasts they don't like (C-Span coverage of crucial debates, Olbermann)(Oops! Sorry...we must be having some kind of technical difficulties. Yeah, that's what it was...technical difficulties.).
If Mr. Obama is serious about defending the Constitution and free Democracy, one of his highest priorities has got to be reforming the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine needs to be re-instituted (thanks for getting rid of that Bill Clinton), reverse media concentration (thanks for that, too, Mr. Clinton): there has got to be major divestiture of media assets. The FCC should also seriously consider stripping the media owners of their licenses to use OUR airwaves and OUR bandwidth, because they have knowingly betrayed their trust and duties to the American public. The DoJ should initiate anti-trust actions against the media, for abuse, through the agency of their cartel, of their de facto monopoly. All the Bush political appointees need to be kicked out of the FCC, because it is being run as a cat house whose only client is Corporate America. America is threatened so long as a free and independent press/media does not exist. Also, congress needs to be on guard against upcoming efforts to eviscerate net neutrality, because the intertubes are the last remaining vestiage of functioning public free speech and thought in America.
Anywise, you're right about the media. In spades.
I hope the "we" the Turley is referring to is/are our "elected representatives".
I'm tired of everything being blamed on we the people,...(unless Turley and Maddow are already assuming that Obama will do nothing and Americans should have been out in the streets, when this came to light, years ago.)
On the other hand I think that people who continue to volunteer income tax money to our unaccountable federal govt are complicit too.
...Am I complicit because I voted for representatives who do nothing about crimes committed within their own ranks?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
The greatest 'crisis' of the age is the crisis of legitimacy.
Whenever you/we permit the oligarchs and the pols and their paymasters name our candidates, and stipulate their agendas, you/we have conceded. You/we are complicit. Damn, betcha, Batman...
So I guess this means when the United Nations comes in to do what Obama and We the people cant seem to do, (hold govt accountable) Me and anyone else who voted for a representative who took no action against admitted acts of torture by the bush admin is gonna get in trouble for watching mainstream media and voting for the guy who got the most coverage huh? (snark)
Dammit, I knew I should have wrote in Nader or Kuchinich.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
knows ALL government is corrupt.
Italians know their government is corrupt. A majority of Americans feel their government is above that kind of behavior, or believe that one party or another has a monopoly on good behavior.
The Italian Govt, and most of the rest of the world, just doesn't pretend otherwise. For some reason--Exceptionalism?--Murkinis are always disturbed to learn their 'representatives' are where they are mainly to pad their own wallets, feather their own nests, and that if some 'common' good should ensue, it's an accident that will be repaired asap...
Hmmm, maybe President Obama should pardon them. That would be a hoot.
I would not necessarily want to see the perps imprisoned, but definitely think there should be a public airing of exactly what happened--who said what; who justified it legally and the legal errors in the foundation upon which it was based--in short, a public humiliation. If they will not confess to wrongoing, THEN imprison them.
And John Yoo should go first. GWB should go last and made to sit and squirm through the whole things--especially video presentation of what his "policies" caused.
Not that I think he's capable of responding to such things in a humane fashion.
Gee DannyEastVillage! I hope you are on my jury when I am charged with crimes against humanity!
I suppose you think these torturers should be allowed to join some republican or democratic think tank for a couple of election cycles so they can re-emerge like so many of the old familiar insiders that Obama has been appointing lately?
...the status quo is OK by you huh? ...really? !
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Hey,did you know for the past year Rumsfeld's been cooling his heels over at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University,as a "visiting fellw".Now, that the years up,hes writing his revisionist memoirs,according to the NYT.
Why John Yoo still has a license to practice law? Or Gonzales? Or Mukasey?
Did you hear about what REALLY happened the other day just before Mukasey "passed out" during his speech to The Federalist Society?:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localne...
Later folks. Gotta go cook the vegetarian feast for the fam.....
Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving Day!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
I say defer to the ICC and the Hague and hand the warcriminals over to the world to do with as they please.
I'm sure the gallows will be busy. I should give a list of all those who should be tried. IT would go all the way deeply into the military and deeply into the media aswell.
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
We the people, are the only ones who can do anything about it. We the people stood by for eight years and did nothing. We the people swallowed the Colin Powell WMD lie. We the people better do something and start TALKING/BLOGGING about it. Turley has led the way, let's build on it. Obama what are you going to do about the torture? Obama what are you going to do about the illegal invasion of Iraq?
How does the war crimes tribunal at the Hague work exactly? Which dudes actually come after the bad guys. Get them on it.
We render the International Courts moot, we further undermine our international credibility, and we enable other nations to use the same heinous tools. All that we, as a people, deplore, we bring about by refusing to acknowledge our own sins. This makes every thing we did to bring Milosevic to justice seem so hypocritical.
I am ashamed of our behavior as a nation, and unless we prosecute these crimes, regardless of where the prosecutions lead, we will no longer have any legal standing to prevent further crimes from future administrations.
We became drunk on the power we wielded. And like any good addict, we wound up seriously abusing that power. And now that power owns us.
As a nation, we need a through and fearless moral inventory. A good long 4th step.
I seriously doubt it'll happen though.
I hope somebody from Mr. Obama's staff reads your comment.
... part of working the steps, part of our 'sobriety' as far as the analogy goes, requires rigorous honesty.
Of course, if we're looking at things in this manner, we have to be careful not to take the other person's inventory.
Assuming, as well, that the other person wants to be 'sober.' That's not a vibe I ever got from Bush.
Heard that before? in the November election from Pelosi? and yet no change has been brought about. It chills me to think that we would become complicit in the war crimes. After reading so much about the History of Hitler and the tribunal of Germany and Japan leaders. We should know better to not ignore this.
The world has been counting on Obama to win, and then to let them down would be a costly mistake. They wouldn't have to place a sanction on us, as we depend more on selling the American dream in order to be prosperous in our nation. This nation has done more to sell Democracy and fair justice in the past by living it, than we have in the last 8 years of military might. If Obama rolls over, then I am certain we will feel the shame world over.
I feel more compelling to address the crime against others than onto ourselves.
Obama's more open and responsive than Bush, and the folks he's tapped for cabinet and administration posts ARE good people. Don't judge too quickly. And don't lose hope either. After all, we know now, after the Brennan episode, that Obama IS responsive to his base and hears the well articulated complaints.
And the change needed to hold an honest investigation of war crimes will be vigorously opposed. There's a great deal of ingrained inertia that must be overcome before THIS kind of change can begin.
Do not lose hope, and above all, do not relent in the pressure that is applied to bring this about.
[I don't know what viola is talking about, Xboxershorts. Looks like 'lose' to me. ;) Sitemonitor]
I think we are forgetting one important thing, the power of the people! If congress and the president do not act, it is time for people to hit the streets and demand that they act. Refuse to accept a commission. I believe (although I am pretty ignorant of the law) that anyone and everyone has the right to file a complaint at their local police station. If congress does not act, millions should be persuaded to file complaints against their congress critters, Bush, Cheney, YOO! We should also get someone to create a website dedicated to this very task, donate money to it, hire attorneys, in short, take the law into our own hands by refusing to accept the negligence and complicity of congress. We should demand that professor YOO loses his law license as well as Alberto Gonzales. Then Bill Fritz for leading the charge in the Senate should lose his license to practice medicine for absolutely unethical acts embarrassing to the medical profession.
We the People are not helpless even if congress abrogates its' responsibility, and someone out there is smart enough, pissed off enough, and a good enough leader to get this accomplished!
For those of us who are Christians, start a prayer chain to ask God to force the world to press charges if congress doesn't, and then try Bush and Cheney in absentia if necessary for their satanic acts!
Something can, and should be done!
That would be something. It'd bring out the 20%ers to start their own counter-prayer-chain. 'Pray for injustice!'
Wonder whose prayers Jesus would listen to.
"For those of us who are Christians, start a prayer chain to ask God to force the world to press charges if congress doesn't, and then try Bush and Cheney in absentia if necessary for their satanic acts!?
God won't 'force the world' to do anything. That's the evangelical line, that the world can be hammered into shape if you're pure enough, good enough, pray hard enough and sing the right hymns. It's mistaking the will of man for the will of God. It doesn't matter if the ooga-booga fear factor is Islamic terrorists or the Righteous Wrath of God Almighty, either way you slice it, it comes out baloney.
(Not religion, per se, but the spin that makes this 'the ideological struggle of our times' and other bull.)
I think Turley was stating that if we aren't part of the solution,we're part of the problem. Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said,"When the people fear the government,there's tyranny. When the government fears the people, there's democracy."?
lose not loose xboxershorts
LoL..thanks!
I suppose to get standing with the court the plaintiffs would have to be actual (or alleged) victims of torture. But there are some pretty rich people with consciences who could bankroll it, eg George Souros has a LOT more money than the entire Bush family. Even if nothing much else came of it, the smirking shithead could be bankrupted.
It would be a case of United States v. Bush, et al, with the plaintiff being the government acting on behalf of its own laws, which clearly state that waterboarding is torture, and also being signatory to international treaties which state the same.
Pelosi-Reid-Obama have already signaled they're not interested in pursuing this topic in the courts other than establishing a commission.
Perhaps a better way to nab the criminals is to follow the money. Track the billions wasted, squandered and even stolen by contractors, war profiteers, and other administration cronies. Now THAT might grab the attention of the American people and the world for several years to come. It might also serve as a deterrent to others.
Republicans in Congress impeached Bill Clinton over lying about a blowjob. George Bush has wiped his butt with the constitution and Nancy Pelosi says impeachment is off the table. Giving Bush that free pass was not the brightest thing in the world. Could we please get a new Speaker of the House? One who's willing to defend the constitution, regardless of who the lawbreaker is.
The way I see it, there's only one person in the House who has earned the right to the Speakership: Dennis Kucinich.
Unfortunately, Pelosi has just been re-elected. Since she is criminally complicit, expect nothing but obstruction and meaningless dog and pony shows. She will do as she has always done, and put her own ass ahead of country.
Same thing has happened in the Senate. Reid was re-elected.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Jonathan Turley is a brilliant legal scholar whose opinions have been rendered mute by most of the MSM for the past few years of the Bush Imperial Presidency. I have had my eyes and ears on him for a long time now.He has been a proponent of impeaching George Bush for quite a while ,although the spin shows haven't given it much play till recently. I saw a C-Span conference involving Turley and Bruce Fein discussing ,openly, the methods and strategy required to impeach Bush over wiretapping and Guantanamo,a couple of years ago. Here's a link to some info.[BTW,you can go to Jonathan Turley.org too.]Impeach Bush CoalitionGeorge Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley refer to the ... investigate and challenge that initiative -- were echoed by Bruce Fein, ...
impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-president-ordered-in-this-case.html - 95k - Cached - Similar pages
I hope turley will be on an Obama shortlist as a Supreme Court nominee.
We have to examine this issue and many others of this administration. I think we need to investigate and prosecute, and examine many things that have happened in the past 8 years. And just as we did with Scooter Libby, we need to find out what has happened, and if at that time, we decide to pardon people,,,
like President Bush did with Libby, you know, thats the way it goes, and it might just be the thing to do in some cases. But to not examine all that has gone on, and to not investigate all that has gone on, well,
THAT TRULY WOULD BE A CRIME!
HORDLE JOHN
...until youse guyz wipe dat stain from yer conscience, yer gonna have one heck of a time rebuildin' dat trust dat boosh has eviscerated... 'cause we ain't all so stupid as ta noe dat dee dems have show'd weak spines... an' d'at pelosi gal dun went an' sed "'mpeaches wuz off da table"... noe-buddy trusts a weakling an' i damned sure wanted ta see d'em peaches... an' if'n dat ain't gonna happen... den ah gots ta see sum justice fer mah munnee.... ;-)
The people of the United States have a responsibility to prosecute war crimes committed in our names or--by international law--other entities are entitled and empowered to do so. War crimes charges brought in other countries are enforceable in any country that recognizes the international court's authority. Donald Rumsfeld has already run into this in his overseas travels.
The longer the Obama administration goes without prosecutions, the more complicit they become in the Bush administration's crimes. However, Obama is in no position to make any pronouncements on any prosecutions right now because he doesn't have the authority or the material to do so and to tip his hands in advance of gathering that evidence diminishes any chance of prosecution. Obama needs the kleys to the Justice Department in his hands.
Once Obama is in office, all he has to do is establish that violations of the Geneva Conventions took place. If Bush administration officials produce the legal memos outlining their legal reasoning, those memos can be challenged in court. If Bush can't produce the legal rationales, then they were operating outside the law and liable to prosecution.
Again, the longer Obama lets Bush's crimes fester, the more the stench is going to permeate his own administration. He's got to do something.
But the only way to deliver it is in the envelope of a Commission. If it turns out to be the brand of Commission we've usually known; if the Commission proves less than probing and candid I fear the reaction would be furious, fueled by widespread economic malcontent.
Reading for years. First post.
If only we could prove that one of the perpetrators had received a Blow Job in the White House. I wonder how many would slam their fists down on the podium demanding we do our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. Wait that will only work if the perpetrators are democrats.
How about if somebody could prove that Pelosi gave Bush a blowjob? Or Harry Reid? That'd prolly work.
Here's another reason for pursuing war crimes trials against our Executive Branch criminals: to keep them from rising from the dead to haunt us again. Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon meant that members of Nixon's staff, who likely would have been implicated if Congress had been allowed to hold hearings, lurked in the wilderness building connections and lust for vengeance, and came back as Nixon on steroids. I'm talking about Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. There are principles involved here, yes, but also self-protection.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be tried for war crimes, right here in the land of the free. America used to stand for justice before Bush got into office. It is our duty to re-establish the rule of law in this country and I cannot think of a better way to send a message to the world and also to those who might try to subvert our constitution in the future, then to try them for war crimes. No get out of jail free card for them. I agree with Prof. Turley, let's try them here before they get arrested in another country, unless it's Iraq.
For the past few years, it's been interesting to see people like Prof. Turley, Chris Matthews...pretty much everyone in the mainstream media and mainstream pundocracy...start doing their jobs again. While I very much appreciate Prof. Turley's views on the travesty of justice that the Bush Administration committed during their tenure in office, I only wish he had taken this stance in 2001, when the insanity began. It was only when public opinion began to turn against the war, the torture and the attack on our freedoms that people like Turley started to question Bush's motives and actions. I remember Turley as a stalwart supporter of many of Bush's activities early on, just as I recall how all of the mainstream media served as Bush's greatest cheer squad during the buildup to and early prosecution of the Iraq War. I am still waiting for the "leaders" of our country to step up and admit their complicity. I find it increasingly difficult to listen to most of the so-called media stars in this country as they lay out Bush's crimes with their holier than thou attitudes. What about their crime of complicity? You're darn right Professor Turley--WE ARE ALL COMPLICIT.
Comments are closed on this entry