Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate the crimes of Bush/Cheney

What kind of signal does "sweeping it under the carpet" send out US society at large? That on a certain level of society one is unassailable?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We impeached a president over commiting perjury. It is true that the perjury was commited in the context of an out of control investigation by a special prosecutor. The irony is that the truth commission you favor would just be another out of control witch hunt. Of course, that's the point, right? You're simply out for revenge, damn the consequences for the nation as a whole.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. The same thing occurred with Iran-Contra and with the endless attacks on Clinton.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The importance difference with Iran-Contra is that there was a legal case that could be made in court. That is, it was obvious LAWS had been broken and that the attacks weren't just partisan witch-hunts from politicians or people who didn't "like" or agree with certain policies. The Boland Amendment and the Arms embargo were the law of the land.

You -- and all the other haters -- have yet to show what illegal acts are being swept "under the carpet." All I see is bile and specious arguments that amount to people not "liking" certain policies.

You -- and all the other haters -- also seem to be ignoring -- or overlooking -- exactly what dragging the former administration into court would do to the country's political process. That or none of you care. See my other posts about that topic.

 

I expect that no prosecutions will happen, that seems to be Obama's wish, to move on. There have been no precedence for prosecuting former presidents for what they did in office. I object strongly to your characterization of claims of illegality as "hatred" or "whining", these are principled positions based on respect for the rule of law. Without the rule of law, we don't have a Democracy, just the appearance of it.

We now know that the adminstration did approve waterboarding, which is a form of torture.

 

I have no doubt that you have convinced yourself that this is all very principled, but without legal merit, without case law, without legal precedent, without specific code violations and obvious illegality, no one is ever going to see at as anything other than partisan bullshit.

And to some degree, it is, no matter how principled everyone thinks they are.

There are plenty of people who think waterboarding isn't torture. For the record, I'm not one of them. But I merely point it out to show how ideological many of your claims are and how there is another side. The law is not clear on any of these matters, and anyone who says otherwise is shilling for one side or another.

 

Steady on cowboy. Whats with the "YOU"? Of course you understand that the democratic process and by proxy, democratic politics, is ALL about opposing or accepting certain policies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your statement confirms that a portion of Americans accept the flaunting of the rule of law by government. And presumably accepts the encroachment of Fascism into said politics.

 

I'm not accepting anything, largely because you haven't detailed or proven anything to accept or deny. The fact you put some pretty pixels up on the internet talking about "flaunting of the rule of law" and other weighty statements doesn't make it so. That is, saying something over and over doesn't make it so.

 

Agreed! I'm getting very tired of all these hazy, nebulous allegations of lawbreaking.

You people who are pushing this agenda need to do ONE thing - if you possibly can (while attempting to keep a straight face):

Give the rest of us an actual LIST of precisely WHAT laws have been broken by Bush & Co. Keep in mind that I'm not a fan of theirs, but you've done nothing so far to substantiate your gross claims.

 

(http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/war_on_terror/)

The proof is in the pudding. Hence the call to action. The commission would determine whether the pixels are pretty or not. Leahy seems convinced enough to stick his neck out.

Why are you getting so pissy over exposing the facts?

 

Getting to the truth of the matter

Why do people keep repeating that? See, that's fine if that's what you believe, but in this case you're forgetting about the law. This issue has been explored before. In September, Spidergoat presented a link purporting to explain that point. In January, I explored that link in a discussion with Radicand, who reasserted the accusation without addressing the arguments put forward, and when pressed to answer those arguments, decided to throw a hissy-cow, instead.

The thing is that conservatives have a fine argument for disgust at Clinton's parsing of words and sentences in bad faith. But conservatives don't seem to want to make the bad faith argument specifically, and no wonder. The Bush years are about as blatant an example of bad faith as one can find.

So we impeached a president over perjury he didn't commit, and why? They wanted him badly enough, settled on a blowjob, and tried to make whatever they could out of that.

Says you. How so? Oh, right:

If I simply wanted revenge, why not advocate the same standard of justice given Saddam Hussein? A kangaroo trial and then execute them? I mean, it's justice, right? And I'm asking you. We all know I have higher standards than that, but what about you?

A TRC? Revenge? Out-of-control witch hunt? Bullshit, sir. Pure, absolute bullshit. Oh, gosh, some people are willing to settle for the truth even if it means the perpetrators go unpunished? Those horrible, vengeful maniacs! God help us!

Then again, neither of us ever really believed in that whole "tough love" thing, did we? You know, where people do what seems unpleasant because it's the right thing to do, and in the long run is good for them?

Don't get me wrong. I always suspected it was vicious bullshit spewed from cruel hearts hoping to justify their sadism in their own eyes. If nothing else, at least there's that: an evil myth from the days of my youth finally struck low.

Your argument is desperate and repugnant, sir.

Imagine your kids are still young. What would you tell them? That Mr. Bush did nothing wrong in authorizing torture? That there's nothing wrong with torture? That Mr. Bush was right to lie about authorizing torture in order to escape scrutiny?

Would you compare him to Martin Luther King, Jr.? Making a courageous stand and defying the law when the law was wrong?

Would you tell them Bush and company did a good thing?
____________________

Notes:

Huppi, Tom. "Myth: Clinton committed perjury". Huppi.com. Accessed February 12, 2009. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

 

I've said it several times. Read-Only says it even better: "I'm getting very tired of all these hazy, nebulous allegations of lawbreaking." Your latest post is more of the same. Some dubious link that doesn't provide any proof or any pudding. Just political opinion and assessment.

You're also foolish to think Leahy is "sticking" anything out. He's in a safe seat and thus can act as big a boob and play as many stupid political games as he likes.

Elsewhere, you seem to have adopted Ice's dangerous thinking: That is, let's empower some people to look for crimes to investigate. This is very different than investigating crimes you can prove happened -- or that you have a strong reason to think happened. And again, you're ignoring what this would all do to the government and the political process. And for what? What do we get with these hearings? George Bush isn't going to jail. Neither is Karl Rove. And if they did, what does that accomplish? You feel better about yourself? Your side wins?

 

There is plenty of smoke to this fire.

If there is no fire, whats in it for him?

There is a strong reason to believe there was a breach of law.

(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/06/politics/main3679720.shtml)

So its better to sweep it under the carpet? Disregard the integrity of the rule of law? No respect for the fundamental American value, the Constitution?

Arguably, a tiny level of justice for thousands of slaughtered civilians.

I have no side apart from what is just and fair.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Really? Post something other than ill-will and nebulous dislike then. So far, no one has. Not in this thread. Not in any thread.

Are you that daft? It's politics. Congress has an abysmal rating. Distracting people with chicanery helps. Heck, it's got you and your ilk feeling really good about them, doesn't it? Not to mention it keeps the red team v. blue team dynamic going.

Again, cite some case law, some code, something other than your naked claim.

Did you really just post a link to McGovern? Wow. That really makes your case. . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm not going to address these questions because they rest on premises that you have NOT proven. And yet, you keep babbling about them, getting all indignant and proud. It's not impressive. You need to find some substance.

Slaughter is a word with a very definite answer. I doubt you can find any person or persons who fits the bill.

Riiiiigggght.

 

OK.

United Nations

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture)

(http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-te...briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981)

US Constitution

The smoke.

(http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s962052.htm)

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/15/2466324.htm)

(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23958930-26397,00.html)

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-to-check-on-condition-of-hunger-striker.html)

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/08/torture-binyam-mohamed-david-miliband)

(http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-judge-admits-torture-tactics-in-guantanamo-20090114-7h0m.html)

(http://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/...1E4F-17FA-D2A2-D17C5CB82ECA&cat=Media Release)

(http://www.missionandjustice.org/us-judge-admits-torture-tactics-in-guantanamo/)

etc.

 

you got 20 or so people and several thousand laws that could take a while.

 

Only with real witches. Which does kind of make a difference, no?

This has gone beyond willful refusal of recognition and become pathological denial. W has admitted to breaking FISA - the telcoms desperately lobbied for immunity for merely cooperating with him. He has admitted to waterboarding. The Armed Services Committee report just out assigns official responsibility for the atrocities at the prisons to White House and command policy - that was enough to hang people at Nuremburg. Halliburton is just sitting there, a legal target the size of a zeppelin, with a known record of contracting fraud and evidence of money laundering or embezzlement rivalling Enron, while its own pet VP claims executive privilege rather than pleading the fifth. The DOJ scandal smells to high heaven. Abramoff is available, and not done talking.

There is enough probable cause to keep five special prosecutors busy for years. The question is not whether there's cause to investigate these guys, the question is where to begin in all of this shambles of criminal hackery.

And you guys have been given these lists before. You're just being stupid.

You and the other fools seem to be ignoring what not prosecuting this administration will do to this country's political process. Apparently you don't care.

The lesson of Reagan: - prosecute. These people are dangerous criminals, and they will not jsut go away as we all look forward.

 

Because it's true.

Because our system of justice has not yet deteriorated to that extent. Give it time.

3 of my 4 kids are still young. I'd tell them that when fighting a war, you sometimes have to do bad things. Like killing and, once in a while, torturing.

Was water boarding Abu Zubaydah a good thing? Yes.

A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary.

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.
"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline."
"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
____________________http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231&page=1​

We put a terrorist thru some temporary discomfort and prevented dozens of terrorist attacks. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Is Mr Zubaydah's comfort more important than the lives of all the people that might have been killed in those dozens of attacks?

Now, would I support widespread torture or the torture of regular criminal suspects? Of course not. But for specific cases like that of Mr Zubaydah, I'd say justice demands that we torture him.

 

How about if we allow other countries to extradite them?

 

No.

In the first place, even successful torture of one or more people for information does not vindicate a policy of torturing. The net gain overall, including opportunity costs and blowback, is what counts.

In the second, torturers are almost completely unreliable sources of information about the value of whatever they've produced by way of information. They tend to be gullible, for one thing, and underestimate how much they are leading and guiding their victims. Also, they tend to be looking for self-justification.

So the value of what was tortured from Zubaydah tends to be rated much lower by those who were not involved in torturing him, directly or indirectly.

Unless instead we forced a bunch of false confessions and other bullshit out of him, with just enough truth mixed in to allow us to fool ourselves. The following is an article briefly summarizing what are common evaluations of Zubaydah's and others' torture-elicited info.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812

btw: The "temporary discomfort" was days of serious abuse - all of it before the exonerating and specious excuses manufactured by John Yoo and his fellow sycophants. So it wasn't even nominally legal. In particular, using bullet wounds and other medical problems for interrogation threat or pain is specifically forbidden.