What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
7 Insanely Useful Ways to Search Twitter for Marketing view!
openforum.com - Twitter gets much more interesting and useful when you can filter out 99% of the junk
63 Comments
- Seminarian, on 04/24/2009, -5/+53FTA: Punishing politically powerful criminals is about vindicating the rule of law. Partisan and political considerations should play no role in it. It is opponents of investigations and prosecutions who are being driven by partisan allegiances and a desire to advance their political interests. By contrast, proponents of investigations are seeking to vindicate the most apolitical yet crucial principle of our system of government: that we are a nation of laws that cannot allow extremely serious crimes to be swept under the rug for political reasons, and that's true no matter what is best for Obama's political goals and no matter how many Democrats end up being implicated -- ethically, politically or even legally -- by the crimes that were committed.
Greenwald has a brilliant way with words. - RagManX, on 04/24/2009, -5/+38It's so obvious and so simple that I'm baffled how many people *still* are arguing against the things Greenwald writes in this article.
- counterspin, on 04/24/2009, -5/+32Greenwald is spot-on, as usual. Catch him on this morning's counterspin (WBAI) ---> http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/090424_100001csp ...
- youareretarded, on 04/25/2009, -2/+25Failure to uphold the law by those whose job it is to up hold the law makes laws pretty pointless.
- Independentsam, on 04/25/2009, -5/+26I too think the article was brilliant. He is correct in saying that the line was crossed. I further agree that it does not matter if alleged defendants are Republican or Democrats. What does matter is that the crimes are prosecuted.
I believe that WE THE PEOPLE can understand "mitigating circumstances." Although not a supporter of Hillary for President, there is a lot about her I do like and respect. While I disagreed with her support of the Iraq invasion, I can understand how she and others voted for it. Hindsight shows that she like all people made a mistake.
This case needs to come to trial where mitigating circumstances can come to light. Torture is terrible. I would expect any elected official to be against it or never give speeches about human rights violations in other countries. This could come down to the proverbial moral dilemma. If someone convinced me by lying that torture could save the lives of thousands of Americans it is conceivable that I would acquiesce.
That does not mean that knowing about it and doing nothing is not criminal. But there is a big difference in culpability between the one presenting the lie and the one who believes it. It has been my experience that like the courts, voters can give leniency provided they are given an honest explanation of what motivated a decision.
Leniency does not necessarily mean re-election, but it could. I can often respect someone if they do something I disagree with provided they give me an honest insight into their decision making process.
Who actually did what will only be revealed if the American torture autocracies are brought to court.
- CaptOblivious, on 04/25/2009, -2/+15For the record, I believe that whomever ordered OR allowed people to be tortured, by decision or by inaction after being informed of it need to be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extend allowed by law. Seriously, everyone. The torturers themselves too.
I also think that using the cover of "National Security" to cover up crimes of ANY type needs to be punished so severely that the punishment for the actual crimes pales in comparison. - specimenfred, on 04/25/2009, -2/+12The U.S. needs to hold the torturous war criminals accountable or else we will never be taken seriously economically, politically, socially or any other way. It's not a choice, it's a simple prerequisite to move ahead as a country.
- CaptOblivious, on 04/25/2009, -6/+16Skywise
If you can't distinguish the difference between lying about a blowjob and ***** TORTURING PEOPLE TO DEATH, you probably shouldn't be even attempting to comment on anyone else's problems. - canchin, on 04/25/2009, -2/+10Whether or not anyone is prosecuted is none of Obama's business. Decisions on prosecution are solely in the purview of the Justice Department and any interference - actual or verbal through the White House propagand...er, um, PR department - is a violation of either the letter of the law if actual, or the spirit of the law if Obama keeps sticking his nose and mouth into things.
The members of his regime that are waltzing onto the TV mumbling about how "He" just wants to go forward are also interfering with the rights of the Justice Department as they are trying to influence by stating what the opinions of the executive branch are - it's none of their business either.
If the Justice Department finds reason to prosecute - and there certainly seems to be little doubt that crimes have been committed and laws broken - and the AG doesn't charge Bush et al with the crimes they have committed, then the only thing one can come away with is that corruption is alive and well in Washington and that the lowly "people" are once again meaningless...until the next election when they can be conned again to accept continuation of the corruption with either the same gang or a new gang.
As for Clinton and the shizz covered blue dress, that's a tempest in a teapot. The real crimes where the Clinton's are concerned, is that they were not thrown in jail long before they got into the White House for the crimes they committed while still in Arkansas. - Sean42, on 04/25/2009, -2/+10Excellent article. I voted for Prez Obama hoping that there would be an end to this kind of cover-up *****. I haven't given up on his adminstration, but my patience is being tried.
- 99CentFreedom, on 04/25/2009, -1/+8The Democrats are a bunch of spineless jellyfish...wow are we honestly surprised about that? Ron Paul is the only congressman who has been standing up for what is right.
- greenmountain, on 04/25/2009, -0/+6
The fact that the Congress knew about the policy and did not object is the point. Not
that Feinstein and Pelosi will be caught in the crossfire, though that is what will happen.
This is why it will not happen, of course.
The only thing the Admin can do is say, it is a policy difference,
we are going in a new direction.
Everything else is political grandstanding, and a distraction from the
incoming missile of Health care takeover, a light veggie
lunch for the rabid left .
This was not a rogue, illegal mess, this was not Bush and Cheney off in a dark corner doing evil, scheming and giggling. Greenwald using the world Criminal in every sentance does not make it so.
It was done within an agreed upon structure, and monitored, with proper legal authority, from the Congress to the Atty. general, on down.
Because it was approved, done properly within the system, approved by the Congess,
and signed off as legal, the only ones that can be pursued are the lawyers for their opinion.
So, they are left attempting to generate support for criminalizing legal opinion.
That is what Leahy is on about, but even he knows that is not going to happen,
so he is trying to get Bybee removed from his seat on the 9th.
************
This is a distraction from the Gov't health care takeover.
The details of our new health care regime remain a mystery today.
They will shove this under the door on a friday night without proper debate.
Just like the corrupt "Stimulus" Bill. It will, like yhe stimulus bill, be unread,
and not understood by anyone, from the top down.
They are currently working on fast tracking the bill, limiting debate to 20 hours.
20 hours of debate to overhaul the vast health care system of the US, 17% of GDP?
Think about this, 20 hours of debate.
********
Extraordinary rendition continues, FISA continues,
Guantanamo will be moved to Bagram and Montana,
the wars continue, soon to expand to Pakistan.
You ticked off leftists are being lied to, played, used again.
So, get out of the way now, Big D has more important issues. - akhomestead, on 04/25/2009, -2/+8If our leaders followed the law America would be unrecognizable by most Americans today.
- itinerantspectr, on 04/25/2009, -2/+7The thing that stings the most is that Obama's campaign message was all about hope. Those of us who are already way over on the side of government by the people and for the people couldn't help but get our hopes up to somewhat astronomical levels. It was almost like I was elected president, or like Mr. Smith went to Washington, where decisions would be made on principle and not be tainted by disproportionate power and influence. We were treated to a few gems such as the announcement of the closing of Guantanamo, the ending of torture policies, a more diplomatic slant on our foreign policy, the ending of raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, and even some of the domestic programs set forth in the stimulus like renewable energy and rebuilding infrastructure. But it seems that every other day, a piece of news comes out that reinforces the fact that this is not a government for the "people," but only certain persons and industries.
Where did the bailout money go, and why is there limited accountability, oversight, and transparency? Why isn't the stranglehold of the financial industry on our economy and government being challenged? Is it a coincidence that the Fed and the Treasury employ many former members and lobbyists of the companies getting bailed out? Why did Obama give so many exceptions to his "No lobbyists in my administration" rule? Why did he laugh at the possibility of marijuana decriminalization? Why is Ted Stevens free to walk the streets? Why did Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, come out in opposition of a torture investigation? Why is there any debate that there should be a torture investigation?
We have a tendency to worry about our image in the world, like how would it look if we applied the same standards to those in power as we do to those without? Would it make us look divided, weak? Those in power exploit this "don't rock the boat" mentality and squeeze undue benefits from a system that is supposed to treat everyone equal. - Seminarian, on 04/25/2009, -0/+5Did you read the article? It's NOT partisan. It's not about political advantage. It's about law, and justice, and the survival of the constitution. Also, take a look at these related posts:
http://digg.com/politics/Waterboarding_Used_to_Be_ ...
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Torture_The_Firs ...
http://digg.com/politics/Process_Philosophy_Immora ... - samsmartjr, on 04/26/2009, -0/+4How many Democrats and Republicans are needed to make something a bipartisan effort? 1? 2? 10? There's ALWAYS going to be disagreements about things, even within a party. That doesn't necessarily make a bipartisan effort.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 04/25/2009, -1/+5I doubt he was suggesting McCain would have been any better or any different.
Imagine everything the same except we are bombing Iran also. - samsmartjr, on 04/25/2009, -2/+6Yes, Skywise, because lying about sex is much much worse than coming up with codewords such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" to replace the word "torture" for the sake of the Geneva Convention and naming them "detainees" as opposed to "prisoner-of-war" so they don't have any rights under the Geneva Convention. Maybe you wouldn't have been so opposed to Clinton if instead of calling them "extramarital affairs" they decided to rename them as "episodes of superhormonal impulse disorders," "lying" as "linguistic cognitive data reinterpretations," and "obstruction of justice" as "strategic evidence alleviation." Would that have made it okay?
- inactive, on 04/25/2009, -1/+5FTA:
The inability of so many people (both Republicans and Obama-loyal Democrats) to view the need for prosecutions independent of political considerations is a potent sign of how sick our political culture has become. The need for criminal investigations is motivated by one simple, consummately apolitical fact: serious and brutal crimes were committed at the highest levels of the government, ones that left a trail of many victims. A country that purports to live under the rule of law has no choice but to treat its most powerful members who commit serious crimes exactly the same as ordinary citizens who do so. That has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.
Kudos Glenn. It's long past time that America had a voice speaking up for what is right instead of either: what is best for the speakers favorite political party, or what is most supportive for the Corporation that owns the media outlet. You go on my *very* short list of journalists whose opinions matter. - VogonPoet, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3I wish you were wrong but I can't argue that way too many Democrats are complicit in this. There are several exceptions which I can't seem to find in the Republican party(Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich come to mind).
What's most disturbing is how there are several liberal voices such as Greenwald calling this what it is(felony crime) but there's a huge lack of conservative voices pointing out the clear truth. The only conservative I can think of who agrees that torture is wrong and has to be prosecuted as the crime it is is Andrew Sullivan. And he's been thrown out of the Republican party for his speaking truth to power. - Debba99, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3Ron Paul for 2012!
- youareretarded, on 04/25/2009, -1/+4That's a fair question and I agree that there definitely is some politicking going here with this issue. The question is, do we overlook this issue because there is politics involved or do we still move forward and prosecute the people that broke the law?
- R0am3r, on 04/25/2009, -2/+5Open your eyes. Same *****, different day.
- oceandead, on 04/26/2009, -0/+3_Anyone_ who is not completely spineless gets ignored or laughed at by the "insiders" and the media. Ron Paul, Mike Gravel etc..
- whiskeythief, on 04/25/2009, -1/+4"Decisions on prosecution are solely in the purview of the Justice Department"
You are a moron. The justice department is part of the executive branch and answers exclusively to the President.
Maybe you are thinking of the Judicial Branch. They both start with the letter J. - broncfan23, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3yeah, Bill Clinton and Al Gore should have stopped fabricating those lies during their term as well.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3And Kucinich.
- whiskeythief, on 04/25/2009, -1/+4"lying about a blowjob". You know that's a lie. He was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment lawsuit.
Yea, that's right, he forced himself on her and tried to get away with it. For the record, he copped a plea, paid off Paula, was found guilty of perjury, and DISBARRED.
You kool-aid swilling buffoon. You can still lie about giving blowjobs without fear. - samsmartjr, on 04/25/2009, -0/+3The only problem with that position - that decisions on prosecution are solely in the purview of the Justice Department - is not in keeping with the "unitary executive theory" that G.W.'s administration espoused during his term.
Under that theory, the Attorney General is subordinate to the President, and it is his job to enforce the laws of Congress. This is a balance of power in that while Congress can make laws, the President has sole discretion in how they'll be enforced. So if Congress passes a crappy law, the President can choose to enforce it in a very lax way so that Congress doesn't have much power.
Any Attorney General who does not comply with the understandings and views of the President may be dismissed at any time. This was shown with G.W. dismissing seven U.S. Attorneys, who then couldn't explain to the Senate Judiciary Committee why because G.W. claimed executive privilege.
So, under this theory of the unitary executive, the Attorney General is subordinate to the demands and wishes of the U.S. President.
So no. It is not up to the Attorney General. It is up to the President. This is because the U.S. government has no other branch with regards to rooting out corruption.
If administration officials are going to be prosecuted, it's going to be Obama who will have the final say. - eXcommunicate, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2RTFA
- KirbyMeister, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2We shouldn't overlook the torture; we should prosecute the Democrats too for being complacent with it!
- samsmartjr, on 04/25/2009, -1/+3Nixon was disgraced because he was forced to resign his presidency. Nothing yet has happened to anyone from G.W.'s administration. Also, the Senate investigated the Watergate scandal, Nixon resigned, and it was only after a period of time that Ford was able to pardon and then move on. There has been no such investigation into G.W.'s White House yet. The truth is still coming out. And we don't even know yet precisely who needs to be pardoned anyway. Personally, I'd like to know so we can make sure they can never get voted into office again.
- dysfunction, on 04/26/2009, -0/+2whiskeythief: Belief in the value of separation of powers- a belief held by the Founders and enshrined in American law from the very beginning- is a sign of a kool-aid drinker to you?
- deathandtaverns, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2There were two things that prevented anyone from doing anything about torture until now. 1. the people who committed the act controlled the justice department and 2. there wasn't any hard evidence of how high up this went until the memos were released. So Democrats as well as those who don't think we should be committing war crimes could have screamed all they wanted and nothing would have gotten done.
Now where you are right is where the notion of looking forward is abso-freaking-lutely ridiculous. I'm aware, as well as Obama is I assume, that encouraging the justice department to go forward with this would not help his political agenda get through congress and if the Republicans would just be quiet and distance themselves from the former administration they could remain relatively clean from all of this and it would be a lot worse for the Democrats, but this is about right and wrong and ignoring the problem until the media bullied you into doing something about it does not help Obama's cause. As somebody who voted for him fully expecting to be disappointed as I would have been with just about anyone, I am most disappointed about this. - youareretarded, on 04/25/2009, -2/+4It appears it was but anyone involved and allowed such tactics should be tried as well.
With regards to the war; it's hard to hold people accountable for their decisions when their decisions were based off of lies and misinformation. - biblebelter, on 04/26/2009, -0/+2in agreement, specimenfred.
- cerejota, on 04/25/2009, -3/+5Bunch of hypocrites all of you. Support of torture was bipartisan, and has been bipartisan, exactly like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. A plague to both your houses.
- digbird, on 04/26/2009, -0/+2Even if everything this article says is true, it doesn't really matter because the Republicans are NEVER going to accept an effort to prosecute former Bush Administration members as anything other than a witch hunt. So if the Democrats go down this road, it's going to pretty much consume Obama's first term.
Now, if you really believe that what the Bush Administration did is manifestly criminal, it's logical to demand that Obama and company go after the Bushies. But if you believe that, you shouldn't kid yourself to think that any effort won't be a nasty, dirty, long-running political drama that will make the chances of Obama getting any support from the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats for his ambitious plans pretty remote.
And something tells me that Obama is not going to say, "Yeah, you know, the hell with my agenda...I'm going to nail Bush and company whatever the cost or price to my administration." - upstream1, on 04/26/2009, -0/+2Vote third, libertarian = Democratic majority!
- Fr33th0t, on 04/25/2009, -0/+2The unitary executive theory is a Republican canard, not the law of the land. In fact a unitary executive would conflict with the separation of powers doctrine.
- Skywise, on 04/25/2009, -2/+3Yes, it's partisan. Yes It's about political advantage. If it weren't you'd be seeing the Democrats investigating themselves but I don't see any calls for that.
- PepeGSay, on 04/25/2009, -2/+3Yep. As the article says Democarts have complained about Democrat complicity while complaining about Bush. That doesn't wash though. It hasn't been covered with the same vehemance. If the Democrats in congress had chosen to stick to their supposed morals instead of political usefulness they could have put a stop to alot of these actions.
- upstream1, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1Ron Paul,
ugh, if he is alive.
But hey I 100% support the fracturing of the conservative base into third parties, Democrats and divide and conquer,
protecting a womans right to chose, pushing green tech, legalizing gay marriage, continuing Obama's foreign diplomacy approach,
yeah libertarians!!!! ANYTHING to keep social conservatives out of office. - upstream1, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1we'll, this article is purposefully naive, the author knows why but chose to present it in this moral high ground fashion. In reality the Obama administration has already declared that anyone acting in good faith during this era would not be prosecuted.
What was left open for prosecution were the original authors of these rules/lack of rules for engagement. Unless Pelosi or some other (D) were literally sitting in on these meeting in which rules of engagement were formed, their off the hook.
I seriously doubt anyone is going to be put on trial, but I do expect investigations and names to be drug through the mud.
It does suck, it is politics, and the elites do live by different standards.
I'll still always vote for a democrat over a social conservative, if my taxes are raised I'll consider it a payment program to keep Bachmann and Palin from stocking the white house with moose for their semi automatic air force 1 hunting trips. - faskippy, on 04/26/2009, -1/+2Better late than never, eh? I must say, when I hire an accountant to do my books, I don't give a damn who he's sleeping with. If he's not entertaining her with my dollars, it's not an issue I feel the need to spend countless hours on.
- samsmartjr, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1Obama is gonna have a tough time. We know that many Republicans were involved with the torture since it was a Republican administration. Investigating and putting them on trial isn't going to be that big of a deal. But it's going to be a problem if plenty of politicians of the Democratic party are involved as well, and so are going to be put on trial as well.
One of two things are going to happen in the near future. Either we're going to get third party revolts on both the right and the left and two new parties will replace the Democrats and Republicans simply because there's too much tarnish to those names; or we're going to see massive realignment WITHIN both parties and a surge in young candidates getting involved in the parties so that the corruption of incumbents are gonna get them kicked out of their seats and fresh politicians will take their place.
Because of this, I can see the conflict Obama is facing. He doesn't want to prosecute any Democratic Congressmen about torture because if they were Democrats who knew about torture that means they were too well connected to not get voted out of office when the GOP controlled Congress from 1995-2007. That means those Congressmen are very powerful politically and can help Obama push through his legislative agendas. But if he asks these Democrats who did nothing to stop torture to help him pass the laws he wants passed so he can lead the way he wants to lead, then he'll be aiding Democrats who allowed the use of torture.
It's gonna be a tough 4 years for Obama. He needs Congress to pass the laws that will allow him to run the government how he feels it needs to be run to get the United States out of our economic and military messes. But Congress is a crapstorm of corruption right now and with all this turmoil it is difficult for our Senators and Representatives to pass those laws. - KirbyMeister, on 04/25/2009, -4/+5I'm not hating on the democrats because they are opposing torture; nor am I hating on the opponents of torture for opposing heinous criminal acts. What makes me angry is that the Democrats are just recently fighting against it. I don't think it's wrong to fight against obvious government tyranny. I'm just wondering why the Democrat party, whom claims the moral high ground, is being a Johnny-come-lately to the abuses-of-government-are-bad side.
Much like how the GOP is a Johnny-come-lately to the taxes-and-defecit-spending-are-bad side, so are the Democrats. Both parties are not standing up for anything; Washington has no ideology. They do not support nor oppose torture unless it is politically convenient to do so. They do not support nor oppose warfare, or welfare, or the War on (X), or bailouts or stimuluses, until they have horribly metagamed the situation to their advantage. - inactive, on 04/26/2009, -0/+1Those who vote democrat have shown time and again that we are not adverse to going after our own when they betray or faith and trust.
just ask blago. IF they are complicite then they should be held accountable.Period - canchin, on 05/01/2009, -0/+1So then, according the Bush Regime doctrine, and of course to both the Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture, Obama is the one committing the greatest crime since in those two noted agreements, it is also a crime if torture is committed in a country that is signatory and the leadership of that country does not prosecute those who torture, it is a crime and that leadership then needs to be charged for not prosecuting.
Seems some people didn't read the second part of either the Geneva Convention or the Convention Against Torture.
Oddly enough though, Bush had his own take on it that perhaps Obama should listen to:
In an interview on Al-Arabiya television, Baby Bush said:
"It is important for people to understand that in a democracy that there will be a full investigation, we want to know the truth, we will find the truth, we will fully investigate, the world will see the investigation, and justice will be served." - samsmartjr, on 04/26/2009, -1/+1I don't think the low levels should be prosecuted too harshly. They were just following the rules of the administration. Unfortunately, the administration itself was corrupt. Let's go after the policy-makers behind this, not those who were forced to implement those policies.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
