Hello:

I'm a law and order fellow. I suppose that sounds surprising to some of you, but I believe in the rule of law.

Any RIGHTY will tell you that the reason we hold people accountable for their actions, is not only to punish them, but to send a signal that illegal behavior isn't acceptable...

So, I don't want to see the dufus or vice in jail because I don't like them. I want to see them in jail because they're criminals, and I don't want any future president thinking he can get away with breaking the law...

That was the whole idea behind the Nixon impeachment. We demanded accountability...

However, today, we'd rather let bygones be bygones. We don't want to stir up anything. We're happy with just letting things lie...

I don't know why. I really don't. You righty's wanted to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job, but you don't want to impeach (or at least try) vice for waterboarding??

The fact of the matter is, it's not ABOUT the dufus or vice. It's about US.

excon

PS> To speech, where he'll say that they've BEEN fully investigated already, I say, BUNK! They've NOT been investigated by the Justice Department, and the gutless congress wasn't willing to issue subpoenas. Why?? Because they went ALONG with the torture and they're guilty TOO. Yes, I'm speaking about Madam Pelosi.

I think one of the greatest achievements of the US was investigating Richard Nixon and exposing his criminality. How many other countries would have the courage to hold their President accountable to the laws of the land? Not many. That is what makes America great, principles above personalities or office.

So I am all for an investigation, but I don't want it turning into a partisan witch hunt. If laws were clearly broken, people need to pay.

Why?? Because they went ALONG with the torture and they're guilty TOO. Yes, I'm speaking about Madam Pelosi.

Why aren't you calling for their removal from office and imprisonment ?

I'm sure Eric Holder has plans to start rounding up the Bushies once he is in office. He isn't in the business of preventing terrorism .He is more interested in securing pardons for terrorists.

What I want to know is how soon after the Obots take control will Charlie Rangel be imprisoned?
Chris Dodd be imprisoned?
Barney Frank be jailed?
Chuck Schumer be incarcerated??

How would these Stalinist-like show trials look like ?
Circus hearings and investigations, subpoenas, depositions and grand juries, for the purpose of tripping up the targets (ala Scotter Libby ), so that they can more handily be prosecuted for the offenses of making false statements, perjury or obstruction of justice.

Then, we would have the trials ;motions and delays, obsessively followed by MSNBC filling in the time with endless commentary from Keith Olberman.

Bush Administration officials were not thieves lining their own pockets. Theirs so called crimes were to exercise the powers of government on our behalf. You can disagree with the decisions they reached but the fact is that they were making decisions based on a legitimate interpretation of Article 2 of the constitution .

So what is really being proposed is the ability of an incoming administration to criminalize political decisions of the previous administration. 4 or 8 years down the road the Obots could face a similar fate.

You really want to get on here and get puffy about how Lefties value the rule of law? "Attorney general nominee Eric H. Holder Jr. repeatedly pushed some of his subordinates at the Clinton Justice Department to drop their opposition to a controversial 1999 grant of clemency to 16 members of two violent Puerto Rican nationalist organizations, according to interviews and documents." Eric Holder pushed for controversial clemency - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-holder9-2009jan09%2C0%2C2083528.story)
The poblem with Lefties is they want to stamp out and imprison those who don't think like those on the Left. Good luck!

Hello tom:

Couple things. You should excuse me. There isn't ROOM to mention ALL the guilty people, conspirators included. Every single one of them should be jailed - every one. If they were told we are waterboarding people and they did NOTHING, they're conspirators. I don't know if those particular people should go the slam, but there absolutely should be a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. Let the chips fall where they may.

And, it matters NOT, that they didn't line their own pockets... We put LOTS of people in jail who didn't do that.

Plus, you got it backwards above... I'm not suggesting we CRIMINALIZE a political decision. I'm suggesting that if a political decision was CRIMINAL, then we need to hold the "decider's" accountable.

excon

What law was broken ? Congress did not pass a law against waterboarding until 2006 .

Hello again, tom:

I'm having trouble thinking it was legal before 2006. But, like Sara Palin said, I'll get back to you on that one, Katie.

But, if they didn't break our laws, they for sure broke international law. And, they for sure broke the Geneva Convention. So, how would you feel about the Europeans capturing vice or the decider when they're on a trip over there, and trying them in the Hague? If WE don't hold them accountable here, the world might. Go for it, world.

But, forget about torture for a minute... They also broke the FISA law when they illegally spied upon Americans WITHOUT a warrant. They should be jailed for THAT. I got a whole laundry list of lawbreaking they did. I've only just started.

excon

Lol ;I've no doubt that the Hague would hold a trial for dunking KSM for 30 seconds. Meanwhile the leaders of over a dozen countries that really torture (according to Human Rights Watch ) have not been captured ,and I hear of no plans to do so.

As for FISA, my same general argument applies . It was not Congress but the Constitution that vested the president with surveillance authority. Yes the president could be impeached for abusing it (as Nixon would have been had he not resigned first ). But the power is a component of the Executive authority forged by Article II, not a creation of statute. Pressed to defend himself Bush should argue that the FISA law itself is unconstitutional because it took away a constitutional executive authority from the President and gave it to the Judiciary.

If Congress thought there was an abuse of power they should've impeached . This business of going after him when he is an ex-President is chicken sh*t in my opinion.

Love the pre-emptive strike, ex. Sorry if I have a hard time buying into the notion that Bush, Cheney, Pelosi, etc. are war criminals deserving of prison. My outrage might be stirred a little more if half the people so eager to see Bush behind bars didn't think Che Guevara was a hero and Hugo Chavez is a great role model.

Yeah I get it, we aren't everyone else so we shouldn't be like them, but all this disdain for an administration (and a wishy-washy congress) I believe has honestly thought they were doing what was needed to protect us falls flat over some rather subjective ideas of what constitutes torture by people who can't seem to figure out what we're fighting in Islamofascist terrorists. In light of the lack of outrage over say, Hezbollah hiding behind the civilian population of Lebanon, Hamas firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel while maintaining in its charter the dedication to Israel's destruction, Chavez and his cadre of dictators, Putin flexing his muscles and Iran and the mullahs…it just seems to me that we have bigger fish to fry.

And like tom said, this business of going after Bush now is pathetic. If they really had anything they surely should have done something by now.

Hello again:

Below are the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations, 1950:

Principle I

Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.

Principle II

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III

The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

---------------------

For you, Steve. You're not alone. You've verbalized the Reasonable American Consensus on torture. It's the agreed-upon method for dismissing away -- mitigating and even justifying -- the fact that our leaders, more or less out in the open, instituted a systematic torture regime with the consent of our key elite institutions and a huge bulk of the American citizenry, engaging in behaviors which, for decades, we insisted were inexcusable war crimes when engaged in by others. This is how we phrased it when WE did it:

When American leaders did it, it was different -- fundamentally different -- than when those evil/foreign/dictator actual-war-criminals did it. Our leaders had good reasons for doing it. They were kind and magnanimous torturers. They committed war crimes with a pure heart. They tortured because they were scared, because they felt guilty that they failed to protect their citizens on 9/11, because they were eager -- granted: perhaps too eager -- to keep us, their loyal subjects, safe from The Murderous Terrorists.

excon

Actually, it's this that I take exception to, the idea that we "instituted a systematic torture regime," the idea that we regularly, intentionally, without remorse or regard for human life engaged in codified "inexcusable war crimes."

As terrible as waterboarding may seem (one case I believe it was), does Khalid show any signs of serious mental harm from it? Were we intentionally maiming, mutilating and raping the detainees? I don't think so, but if so then sure, let's jail the whole lot of them. Not one congressman, senator, aide, cabinet member, CIA agent or anyone else left out. While we're at it, let's prosecute the NY Times and their sources for leaking classified information.

Were we intentionally maiming, mutilating and raping the detainees?

Umm, yeah!!
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse)

Hoe you all haven't forgotten about Alberto R. Gonzales, the biggest criminal of them all!

The U.S. Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and seven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and September 2005, seven soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to federal prison time, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer at the prison, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005.

People were held accountable. I don't believe anyone has shown that maiming, mutilating and raping the detainees was official US policy have they? The Wikipedi article does state an executive order approved "sleep deprivation, hooding prisoners, playing loud music, removing all detainees' clothing, forcing them to stand in so-called "stress positions", and the use of dogs." Is that torture?

The Washington compost admits that the office of the President-elect will have a" perilous balancing act to fulfill his pledge to make a clean break with the detention and interrogation policies of the Bush administration while still effectively ensuring the nation's security."
Obama Under Pressure On Interrogation Policy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010903784_pf.html)

Lol ;this is where campaign rhetoric meets reality road.

by the way : did you hear Obama's waffling during his interview with George Stephanopolis ?

They were talking about Cheney's advice that he calm down and find out exactly what was being done before he needlessly limit his options :
OBAMA: For example, Vice President Cheney I think continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations and from my view waterboarding is torture. I have said that under my administration we will not torture.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about them taking that to the next step. Right now the CIA has a special program, would you require that that program -- basically every government interrogation program be under the same standard, be in accordance with the army field manual?

OBAMA: My general view is that our United States military is under fire and has huge stakes in getting good intelligence. And if our top army commanders feel comfortable with interrogation techniques that are squarely within the boundaries of rule of law, our constitution and international standards, then those are things that we should be able to (INAUDIBLE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no more special CIA program?

OBAMA: I'm not going to lay out a particular program because again, I thought that Cheney's advice was good, which is let's make sure we know everything that's being done. But the interesting thing George was that during the campaign, although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn't have a difference, which is that it is possible for us to keep the American people safe while still adhering to our core values and ideals and that's what I intend to carry forward in my administration.
ABC News: 'This Week' Transcript: Barack Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/story?id=6618199&page=1)

To refresh Obama's memory... McCain initially supported limiting interrogations to the Army Field Manual . But when Sen FrankenFeinstein introduced an amendment to make it law ,McCain opposed it.

Then Feinstein herself got that "flexibility " bug according to the NY Slimes :
But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us/politics/03intel.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Her cosponsor on the Army Field manual amendment,Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, said :
he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.

Hmmm ......secret interrogation techniques .

EXCON- I like your thinking...

btw : did you hear Obama's waffling during his interview with George Stephanopolis ?

They were talking about Cheney's advice that he calm down and find out exactly what was being done before he needlessly limit his options :
OBAMA: For example, Vice President Cheney I think continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations and from my view waterboarding is torture. I have said that under my administration we will not torture.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about them taking that to the next step. Right now the CIA has a special program, would you require that that program -- basically every government interrogation program be under the same standard, be in accordance with the army field manual?

OBAMA: My general view is that our United States military is under fire and has huge stakes in getting good intelligence. And if our top army commanders feel comfortable with interrogation techniques that are squarely within the boundaries of rule of law, our constitution and international standards, then those are things that we should be able to (INAUDIBLE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no more special CIA program?

OBAMA: I'm not going to lay out a particular program because again, I thought that Cheney's advice was good, which is let's make sure we know everything that's being done. But the interesting thing George was that during the campaign, although John McCain and I had a lot of differences on a lot of issues, this is one where we didn't have a difference, which is that it is possible for us to keep the American people safe while still adhering to our core values and ideals and that's what I intend to carry forward in my administration.
ABC News: 'This Week' Transcript: Barack Obama (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Economy/story?id=6618199&page=1)

To refresh Obama's memory .....McCain initially supported limiting interrogations to the Army Field Manual . But when Sen FrankenFeinstein introduced an amendment to make it law ,McCain opposed it.

Then Feinstein herself got that "flexibility " bug according to the NY Slimes :
But in an interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Feinstein indicated that extreme cases might call for flexibility. “I think that you have to use the noncoercive standard to the greatest extent possible,” she said, raising the possibility that an imminent terrorist threat might require special measures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us/politics/03intel.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Her cosponsor on the Army Field manual amendment,Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, said :
he would consult with the C.I.A. and approve interrogation techniques that went beyond the Army Field Manual as long as they were “legal, humane and noncoercive.” But Mr. Wyden declined to say whether C.I.A. techniques ought to be made public.

Hmmm ......secret interrogation techniques .

Well you should be appauding then, shouldn't you?:D

Flexibility? No!! Have you also noticed that the media is starting to favor the term "harsh methods" now?

The media? They might be propagandists?

Hello again:

Let me close this thread with a few truths...

Things are backwards today... Used to be, that the RIGHT were the law and order people... They ARE, but only when it comes to peons... When it comes to high government officials, nahhh, not so much...

It's clear, that Obama is not going to prosecute... It doesn't make me happy.

The word "liberal" has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last eight years. All that's necessary to qualify is a belief in such radical, exotic and fringe-leftist concepts as search warrants before the Government can eavesdrop on our communications; due process before the state can lock people up for life; adherence to decades-old Geneva Conventions restrictions which post-World-War-II America led the way in implementing; and the need for an actual, imminent threat from another country before we bomb, invade, occupy and destroy it.

But, wait. Liberals are worse than that... Would you believe that liberals NOW adopt the shrill, ideological belief that high government officials must abide by our laws and should be treated like any other citizen when they break them. To believe that now makes you not just a "liberal," but worse: a "liberal score-settler."

Apparently, one can attain the glorious status of being a conservative, only if one believes that high political officials (and our most powerful industries, such as the telecoms) should be able to break numerous laws (i.e.: commit felonies), openly admit that they've done so, and then be immunized from all consequences.

Yup, down is up -up is down.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm PROUD to BE a law and order guy, now that you folks have abandoned the phrase.

excon

As nuanced as you are, excon, you will enjoy this: "Barack Obama was elected partly to cleanse the temple of the Bush-Cheney stain, and in his campaign speeches he promised to reverse Cheney's efforts to seize power for the White House in the war on terror.

"It may not be so simple." Obama's Cheney Dilemma | Newsweek Politics: The Obama Presidency | Newsweek.com (http://www.newsweek.com/id/178855)

It may not be so simpleHello again, George:

It's true. The dufus broke it SOOOO badly, that it might NOT be fixable. Specially when there's a consensus to KEEP doing it...

I, however, being the law and order guy I am, believe that we can "preserve and protect the Constitution", AND keep us safe.

But, what do I know?

excon

During WWII The Roosevelt Adm gathered up 110,000 Japanese-Americans and sent them to interior concentration camps . The Constitution and the nations survived that and Roosevelt is considered one of the great Presidents.

during WWII The Roosevelt Adm gathered up 110,000 Japanese-Americans and sent them to interior concentration camps . The Constitution and the nations survived that and Roosevelt is considered one of the great Presidents.

Sounds all well and good from a historical perspective; but it was nightmare for Japanese-American individuals who believed that being American meant the constitution protected them too.

I don't know your background, but if the next wave of terrorists start looking like you and you get locked up for years without a charge being leveled against you and your tortured because you must be a lying bastard terrorist, and you have no access to the legal system; you might have a change of heart.

Hello again, tom:

What you say is true. But, Roosevelt WON a war where we actually were attacked... Nothing breeds forgiveness like success.

The dufus, on the other hand, started one war for no apparent reason, and we ain't won it yet. Oh, he had the reason he MADE up to start it, but that ain't enough... Of course, STARTING that war caused us to start losing the OTHER war... Now that the dufus has checked out, ain't nobody putting out tales that we're winning there - NOBODY!

So, now you've compared the dufus to Truman, Hoover and now Roosevelt. Aren't you stretching a little??

excon

Hello again, Tex:

*greenie*

excon

Hello again, tom:

What you say is true. But, Roosevelt WON a war where we actually were attacked... Nothing breeds forgiveness like success.

The dufus, on the other hand, started one war for no apparent reason, and we ain't won it yet...

excon
You are suggesting we use fire bombs and nukes so we can 'win' the war (as FDR and Truman)? Even you should compliment Bush on being a compassionate warrior.

George ; I was not praising Roosevelt. I was in fact saying that much worse has happened in our history and I'm tired of George Bush being reviled for actions he took in our defense.

Ex; all the incidents be they waterboarding ;Gitmo etc were all reactions to 9-11 ;not the Iraq war .

You are suggesting we use fire bombs and nukes so we can 'win' the war (as FDR and Truman)? Even you should compliment Bush on being a compassionate warrior.Hello again, George:

Nahhh. I'm not a compassionate warrior. I'm more from the John Wayne school of warfare. Pick your enemy's well, and bomb hell out of 'em.

But, if you pick wrong, as the dufus did, compassion don't mean squat!

excon

George ; I was not praising Roosevelt. I was in fact saying that much worse has happened in our history and I'm tired of George Bush being reviled for actions he took in our defense.


Well, I was responding to excon, as I agree with you. Furthermore, as to Allied behavior in WWII, "The greatest "war crime" in terms of a bombing raid against Germany in the second world war was the bombing of Dresden. The Germans had tried very hard NOT to make this beautiful city a target. The Americans and English bombed it to hell, just for spite. They methodically chose a method which would assure maximum destruction. First, large incendiary bombs were dropped. This was followed by "block" busters, to spread the initial fires, and to destroy the water mains which would be needed to fight the fires. This was followed by lots of small incendiaries to spread fires over a wide area--and finally, specific pattern-bombing with 500- and 1000- pound bombs to start the "fire storms" which had so devasted Hamburg." Was Allied bombing of Germany Jan - April 1945 a war crime? (http://able2know.org/topic/1239-1)
The U.S. started this acitivity on a grand scale in the War Between The States, not to mention its fights with native Americans. I guess Bush & Cheney have more to answer for than we expected. But I digress...

Hello again, George:

Nahhh. I'm not a compassionate warrior. I'm more from the John Wayne school of warfare. Pick your enemy's well, and bomb hell out of 'em.

But, if you pick wrong, as the dufus did, compassion don't mean squat!

excon

You are a cherrypicker's delight: so you are saying, might makes right?

You are suggesting we use fire bombs and nukes so we can 'win' the war (as FDR and Truman)? Even you should compliment Bush on being a compassionate warrior.

Compassionate? Considering Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq at the start of the war and there were no WMD's to be found. How many Iraqi civilians lost their lives due to a questionable war with Iraq? Conservative estimates put the number at 100,000 dead.

That's not compassion, it's incompetence which resulted in the involuntary manslaughter of 100,000 people.

(Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An instance of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge, into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death wouldn't be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.).

Compassionate? Considering Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq at the start of the war and there were no WMD's to be found.
That's not compassion, it's incompetence which resulted in the involuntary manslaughter of 100,000 people.[I]
I]
TP: the war in Iraq was not proseucted to rid the country of Al-Qaeda; the fact that no WMD was located is obviated by the fact that Saddam's possession was assumed by everyone on the planet; and by the fact that Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job. He was given an ultimatum and determined on his and his country's behalf to play 'dare'. In that way, Bush is a lot like Lincoln: not a man to screw around with.

TP: the war in Iraq was not proseucted to rid the country of Al-Qaeda; the fact that no WMD was located is obviated by the fact that Saddam's possession was assumed by everyone on the planet; and by the fact that Saddam refused to allow UN inspectors to do their job. He was given an ultimatum and determined on his and his country's behalf to play 'dare'. In that way, Bush is a lot like Lincoln: not a man to screw around with.

May 1st, 2003.

History will show that George W Bush was right (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4241865/History-will-show-that-George-W-Bush-was-right.html)
By Andrew Roberts - Telegraph.co.uk


The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"

"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.

In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.

The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush
After 9/11.

The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.

Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.

Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.

History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.

May 1st, 2003.

By the way, that mission was accomplished. But a president should never underestimate ("assume away", as General Swarzkopf used to say) the capabilities of his enemies, in this case, the MSM. Mass media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media)

"I have often said that history will look back and determine that which could have been done better, or, you know, mistakes I made. Clearly putting a "Mission Accomplished" on a aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but nevertheless, it conveyed a different message." -Bush acknowledging this mistake.


It's very nice that Susan Crawford can now continue her work with a clear conscience, but it seems the left has missed the point of this story entirely[/U][/URL]. We already knew that the Bush administration had ordered the use of aggressive interrogation techniques on a number of detainees, and we already knew that there was some disagreement about whether those techniques constituted torture as defined by international treaties and U.S. law. Liberals will call it torture, Bush and Cheney do not. Crawford asserts that, in her view, the aggregate effect of the otherwise legal techniques authorized by Bush was, in fact, torture. All of which does nothing to advance a solution about what to do with Mohammed al-Qahtani.

Barack Obama has come up with a clever strategy on Gitmo -- order the closure of the U.S. prison there and take the next one to eight years figuring out how best to implement the new policy. The left has given him a pass on this as they will give him a pass on just about anything for the foreseeable future, but the implication is clear: Obama has no idea what to do with men like Qahtani who pose a very real threat to the American people but cannot be convicted in federal court for the crimes they have already committed.

Obama at least seems to understand that simply attacking the Bush administration for the decisions it made in the aftermath of 9/11 will no longer suffice as a substitute for some alternative policy. His supporters haven't yet arrived at the same conclusion. There are a dozen liberal bloggers using this story as a launching pad for an attack on the war crimes of the Bush administration, but none has offered any solution to the problem that plagues Judge Crawford -- what now?

In less than a week Barack Obama will be sworn into office and Democrats will need to stop defining themselves by their opposition to George W. Bush and start arguing in favor of serious policies for keeping this country safe. For all the self-righteous talk about constitutional protections and international law and due process, the current consensus on the left would have Obama free Qahtani and prosecute Bush. If that's the outcome dictated by a principled liberalism, then liberalism won't be ascendant for very long.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/01/now_what.asp)

Shall we continue to hound him from here on or shall we move on?

The solution is simple really. Bring the Gitmo detainees to the US. Put them under house arrest with monitoring ankle bracelets and surveillance around the clock. Send them to a new hybrid court system that protects classified imformation but allows the detainee the right to defend himself. If the government loses the case, they could tie it up in appeals for years; and all the while the detainee would be allow a life of a sort although monitored closely until he is no longer a threat, or the organization he worked for is no longer a threat. If the government wins, they send him to prison or worse depending on the laws.

My concern is of course what if the detainee is innocent? This would allow them a life of a sort while waiting for their day in court rather than being held in a cell without hope or any freedom. I think this a reasonable compromise, will it hold up under our constitution, I doubt it.

The detainee's home countries don't want them back and I say keep your enemies close so you can keep an eye on them.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration created this mess of what to do with detainees in Gitmo. I mean even if Bush could have been elected to 4 more 4 year terms, how were THEY going to deal with detainee's; release them at 80 years old or let them die, which ever came first?

So don't blame Obama for having difficulty with this one, because the Bush administration apparently had the same exit strategy for Gitmo as they had for Iraq. Didn't McCain say, 100 years if that's what it takes?

...If the government loses the case, they could tie it up in appeals for years; and all the while the detainee would be allow a life ...

The detainee's home countries don't want them back and I say keep your enemies close so you can keep an eye on them.
How about you, as a show of good faith, post your home address? Or, just your home town?

My family is less of a target to a terrorist than it is to the Child Molesters who already live in our town. So I wouldn't have a problem with that, at least the potential terrorist would have round the clock surveillance while awaiting trial.

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)
SCOTUS decided that a nonresident enemy alien has no access to our courts in wartime .

Speaking of courts the NY Slimes reported today that

A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, is expected to issue a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a court order, even when Americans' private communications may be involved, according to a person with knowledge of the opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/washington/16fisa.html?hp

Hello again,

Yesterday, our new Attorney General stated the obvious: waterboarding is torture and is illegal.. Having said that, how can he avoid prosecuting the present torturers?

I suppose they could say that the Justice Department gave them the green light, so they're clear.

But, wasn't the Justice Department stuffed with loyal Bushies contrary to law too? It WAS, and it was THOSE loyal Bush appointees who gave the OK.

Call me a conspiracy nut, but if it quacks like a duck...

Now, it's true that a serious investigation of Bush-era abuses would make Washington an uncomfortable place, both for those who abused power and those who acted as their enablers or apologists. And these people have a lot of friends. But the price of protecting their comfort would be high: If we whitewash the abuses of the past eight years, we'll guarantee that they will happen again.

That's something that ALL "law and order" people such as myself, instinctively KNOW. How come YOU don't know that?

excon

Hello again,

Yesterday, our new Attorney General stated the obvious: waterboarding is torture and is illegal.. Having said that, how can he avoid prosecuting the present torturers?

excon

You make a good point, but law students learn early-on to distinguish their personal opinions from 'the law'. I don't expect 'our new attorney general' to start evangelizing any time soon, anyway. "That was not done with Marc Rich. Eric Holder short-circuited the process. He deliberately kept the Pardon Attorney out of the loop. He did not inform the lead prosecutor that a pardon for Marc Rich was underway.

"Unless Eric Holder was breathtakingly incompetent, he had to know what the charges were against Rich. It was not just tax evasion in the millions of dollars. It was also trading with the enemy. Rich broke the embargo that the US had officially established on oil being sold by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And lastly, Rich had fled the US to avoid prosecution. He was a fugitive from justice." Eric Holder: Crook. Liar, Attorney General (http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1833&posts=1)

Of course murder is wrong, but in time of war, killing the enemy with guns and bombs don't get the soldiers tried for murder either.

You make a good point, but law students learn early-on to distinguish their personal opinions from 'the law'. Hello again, George:

His torture statement WASN'T a opinion... His personal views AREN'T what these confirmation hearings are about...

Marc Rich?? Please stay focused. Or are you going to answer questions about Obama's foreign policy with complaints about Whitewater?

excon

Confirmation hearings are about views, opinions, hypotheticals, and politics. Seems Holder is carrying quite a bit of baggage for the sqeaky-clean Messiah: "In addition to the Rich matter, Specter can be counted on to follow up on a few other issues he raised on the Senate floor last week. Among them: Holder's involvement in former Attorney General Janet Reno's decision not to appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations that Al Gore was raising illegal campaign funds in 1996; the clemency Holder had supported for Puerto Rican militant group Armed Forces of National Liberation; and Holder's involvement in the investigations of the 1993 Waco siege and nuclear spying by the Chinese." 5 coming confirmation collisions - Daniel Libit - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17312.html)

Or are you gonna answer questions about Obama's foreign policy with complaints about Whitewater?Hello again, George:

So you ARE going to bring up Whitewater every time Clinton's name is mentioned...

Okee doakee.

excon

Not me . I think the Republican Congress missed the boat on the real impeachable offenses of the Clintonistas... the transfer and selling of military technology to the Chicoms for political donations.


Like I said echoing Cheney... Obama is going to want to have the flexibility so he won't sic his Justice Dept. on the departing Bush administration .You know it is bad form and would plague his administration knowing the criminalization of politics is a 2 way street.

it is bad form and would plague his administration knowing the criminalization of politics is a 2 way street.Hello tom:

We've had discussions before over the above semantics... I say, the politics were criminal in the first place- not the other way around. Given your definition, the Khmer Rouge just just made bad policy. It's ridiculous on it's face.

Besides, we've already crossed the first hurdle making your argument moot. Our chief law enforcement officer said what they DID is criminal. It's not just bad policy. I'm not making it up... really. You can't torture anybody no matter who you are.

excon

My expectation is that Congress has no stomach for this inquiry, and no prosecutor would want to take this position before a jury. I guess we'll see.

In theory I agree with you EX :

Win the heart and minds in Iraq by treating them well. Restore infrastructure, build hospitals and schools and places of worship etc. Of course we don't hear enough of that in the MSM. It was part of Petraeus' counterinsurgency and what happened in Anbar.


But if we "play by the rules" and take certain judiciously applied interrogation techniques off the table, is the outcome worse?

- it could take longer to get intel
- it could cost innocent lives because we can't get the intel or get it timely manner
- it could lengthen an already long war, since the enemy, who is willing to use any means necessary to defeat us, knows we will hesitate in trying to defeat them. Do you think the jihaddists will come around and think, " you know what, they are really changing their ways, we should hold off and talk about our differences and come to a mutually agreeable compromise"
- our we really better than we think we are? Sherman's march, American Indians, Dresden, slavery, Hiroshima / Nagasaki, Japanese internment - or were we really making judgements to bring about a goal?







G&P

Holder already told Orin Hatch in testimony that he isn't planning on going after Bush adm officials. He knows he will take down too many Democrats if he applied the same standards to Democrats. Beginning in 2002, Nancy Pelosi and other key Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were thoroughly, and repeatedly, briefed on the CIA's covert antiterror interrogation programs. They did nothing to stop such activities. If they now decide the tactics they heard about then amount to "torture" , then by their own logic they themselves are complicit.

If they now decide the tactics they heard about then amount to "torture" , then by their own logic they themselves are complicit.Hello again, tom:

Well, it's a good thing Madam Pelosi isn't the one who makes the decision then, isn't it? Eric Holder is the one who'll do the investigating, thank you very much.
But if we "play by the rules" and take certain judiciously applied interrogation techniques off the table, is the outcome worse? - it could take longer to get intel - it could cost innocent lives because we can't get the intel or get it timely manner - it could lengthen an already long war, Hello in:

You make the assumption that torture works, and that obeying the law doesn't.

I don't make those assumptions at all.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Well, it's a good thing Madam Pelosi isn't the one who makes the decision then, isn't it? Eric Holder is the one who'll do the investigating, thank you very much.Hello in:

You make the assumption that torture works, and that obeying the law doesn't.

I don't make those assumptions at all.

excon

If if he's all for not adhering to laws then what will govern our behavior? Nothing. What will govern the leaders of our country if they do not adhere to our laws? Nothing. If there is no check on power, then they have the power to do anything to anyone. Sound like some third world dictatorships to you?

We are great because of our laws limits those entrusted to govern for the people so the PEOPLE always govern. Those who break the laws should be held accountable.

Let's see where Holders interest lies. Playing Inspector Javert to Bush adm officials of going after potheads.

If if he's all for not adhearing to laws then what will govern our behavior? Nothing. What will govern the leaders of our country if they do not adhere to our laws? Nothing. If there is no check on power, then they have the power to do anything to anyone. Sound like some third world dictatorships to you?

We are great because of our laws limits those entrusted to govern for the people so the PEOPLE always govern. Those who break the laws should be held accountable.


How about Rangel or Geithner?

Some may need laws to "govern" their behavior, most of us try to do what is right. ;)






G&P

This is what Madame Mimi Pelosi said this weekend :
"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," ...."And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

Translation... anything that has my fingerprints on it is something best to ignore and look to the future rather than to the past.

Anthing that she or the Congressional Democrats are not complicit in is fair game for prosecution. Or other words ;the criminalization of politics .
You see this is how it works . When Stevens of Alaska gets into trouble immediate action is required. When cold cash Jefferson gets caught it takes a vote by the electorate to do the right thing. Still waiting for Charles Rangel to be held accountable.


Of course nothing can stop Conyers from holding Stalinist show hearings . But we are used to that ;that's what Dems do in lieu of responsible governance.. . They dragged baseball players into Congress while the economy was teetering . They'd love to keep this alive for another 2 years until the mid-term elections.

the criminalization of politics . Hello again tom:

Hmmm. If one takes your logic to its natural conclusion, the president couldn't violate a law even if he wanted to. Unless he got a blow job, of course.

You're in good company, however. Both the dufus AND Nixon think the president can't break the law... Poor fellows.

You'd LIKE it to be about politics. That's why you keep on using your well worn phrase above. But, finally, after eight LONG years, it's NOT about politics. It's about the law.

I don't know about you law and order folks anymore. You're losing credibility, if you ever had any. Again, by your logic, Augusto Pinochet wasn't guilty of torture. Noooo. He just made bad political decisions...

Don't you know how ridiculous that sounds??

excon

After noon tomorrow I will say... just like the Clintonistas... MOVE ON

Yeah banana republics execute their former leaders.
The Obots have that covered however
H. J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second... (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj111-5)

A President for life does not have such concerns.

Hello again, tom:

Binding U.S. law REQUIRES prosecutions for those who authorize torture. To wit:

(1) Vice AND dufus admitted they authorized waterboarding. (2) Waterboarding IS torture and IS illegal, as iterated by our Attorney General, Eric Holder. (3) "No one is above the law.", he said repeatedly. (4) Bush official Susan Crawford recently said, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Gates, "We tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani," . "His treatment met the legal definition of torture."

Given the above, it seems fairly easy, even for those overtly hostile to the basic rules of logic and law, to see what conclusions are COMPELLED by the above premises.

Let me quote the CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan):

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.. .

The following is from the U.S. Constitution:

"..and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby."

Consequently, the U.S. under Ronald Reagan, legally obligated itself to investigate and prosecute any acts of torture committed by Americans.

All of the standard excuses being offered by Bush apologists: our leaders meant well; we were facing a dangerous enemy; government lawyers said this could be done; Congress immunized the torturers; it would be too divisive to prosecute -- are explicitly barred by this treaty as grounds for refusing to investigate and prosecute acts of torture.

In fact, international treaties, which the U.S. signs and ratifies, aren't cute little left-wing platitudes for tying the hands of America, as you would have us believe. They're binding law according to the explicit mandates of Article VI of our Constitution.

Thus, there simply is no way to (1) argue against investigations and prosecutions for Bush officials and simultaneously (2) claim with a straight face to believe in the rule of law, that no one is above the law, and that the U.S. adheres to the same rules and values it attempts to impose on the rest of the world.

It's as simple as that. Once Eric Holder stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and that once both Bush and Cheney admitted to authorizing it, and that once a top Bush official used the word "torture" to describe what the U.S. did at Guantanamo, the "discretion" to investigate and prosecute disappeared.

excon

You forgot 2 things :

Legal opinions from the Justice Department that declared even the harshest interrogation methods to be legal.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 grants strong legal protections to government employees who relied on such legal advice .

I agree that Holders comments designed to appease the fringe in the Senate makes it harder for him to avoid taking action .But prosecuting this would send a very bad signal to people in the Agencies involved . Michael Hayden pointed that out to the Obots last week.
"If I'm going to go to an officer and say, 'I've got a truth commission, or I want to post all your e-mails, or, well, we've got this guy from the bureau who wants to talk to you,"' Hayden said, it would discourage such a CIA officer from taking risks on behalf of the new president's policies.
"We have no right to ask this guy to bet his kid's college education on who's going to win the off-year election,".

Holder also told Senator Orrin Hatch in the hearings that :
"One of the things I think I'm going to have to do is to become more familiar with what happened that led to the implementation of these policies."

Perhaps he should do that before he opens his pie hole. Forgetting the fact that the incoming CIC will want to have the flexibility himself (whether he thinks so now or not )

Edit : forgot to add link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090116/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogations

However, Obama's changes may not be absolute. His advisers are considering adding a classified loophole to the rules that could allow the CIA to use some interrogation methods not specifically authorized by the Pentagon, the officials said.

You forgot 2 things :

Legal opinions from the Justice Department that declared even the harshest interrogation methods to be legal.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 grants strong legal protections to government employees who relied on such legal advice .Hello again, tom:

Uhhh, no I didn't.
All of the standard excuses being offered by Bush apologists: our leaders meant well; we were facing a dangerous enemy; government lawyers said this could be done; Congress immunized the torturers; it would be too divisive to prosecute -- are explicitly barred by this treaty as grounds for refusing to investigate and prosecute acts of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . .
excon

For those who are inclined to this sort of thing:
"On Monday, a group called AfterDowningStreet.org was scheduled to hurl footwear at the White House, an apparent slap at the president reminiscent of a recent press conference in Iraq. Other anti-war groups were set to gather at the Pentagon on the same day...Groups like Arrest Bush promise to keep the heat on the Obama administration to do what they feel they could not: hold Bush accountable for what they call war crimes...."I'm not holding out great hopes that he's [Obama] going to change things around," said Laurie Dobson of Kennebunkport, Maine.

Dobson, who unsuccessfully ran as an independent against Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, in 2008, has protested Bush's policies almost from the beginning of his administration. She warned that pressure has to be kept on Obama to take action against the nation's 43rd president... People give [Obama] all kinds of excuses because they want so much to believe in him," she said. "That's how they make a tyrant.. . If we do our job as [citizens] then he could be a good president. It all depends on us keeping him in line." Yawn Bashers End Bush Era Deflated by Lack of Prosecutions | Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/18/obama-whistle-stop-tour-brings-chance-bush-bashers/)

For those who are inclined to this sort of thing: Hello again, George:

"This sort of thing" happens to be our law...

excon

I suppose what 'y'all' will have to decide is whether to fish or cut bait. The world awaits. Meanwhile, more grist for the new 'law and order' crowd:
"One measure that is an essential part of any [national security] plan is the need to tighten our nation's gun laws, which allow the easy and legal sale of firearms to terrorists and criminals.. . [F]ederal law does not require background checks on all firearms sales. In the interest of national security, this should be changed immediately.. . To further strengthen the ability of law enforcement officials to track those suspected of terrorism or other criminal acts in this country, Congress should also pass legislation that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale. (Eric Holder, Jr. “Keeping Guns Away from Terrorists,” The Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2001) Fortunately, or unfortunately, on this point, this law and order proponent was wrong insofar as the supreme court is concerned. He didn't mention box cutters, knives, screw drivers, etc.

Compassionate? Considering Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq at the start of the war and there were no WMD's to be found. How many Iraqi civilians lost their lives due to a questionable war with Iraq? Conservative estimates put the number at 100,000 dead.

That's not compassion, it's incompetence which resulted in the involuntary manslaughter of 100,000 people.

(Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Recklessness, or willful blindness, is defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation. An instance of this would be a defendant throwing a brick off a bridge, into vehicular traffic below. There exists no intent to kill; consequently, a resulting death wouldn't be considered murder. However, the conduct is probably reckless, sometimes used interchangeably with criminally negligent, which may subject the principal to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter: the individual was aware of the risk of injury to others and willfully disregarded it.

In many jurisdictions, such as in California, if the unintentional conduct amounts to such gross negligence as to amount to a willful or depraved indifference to human life, the mens rea may be considered to constitute malice. In such a case, the charged offense may be murder, often characterized as second degree murder.).


This is the fact, and the crime.

Here's your effort to prosecute war crimes, ex.


Israel warns soldiers of prosecution abroad for Gaza 'war crimes' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/4323980/Israel-warns-soldiers-of-prosecution-abroad-for-Gaza-war-crimes.html)

At least four human rights groups are believed to be compiling suits alleging that Israelis perpetrated war crimes in planning or carrying out the three-week operation Cast Lead.

Daniel Friedman, Israel's justice minister, was appointed to head a special task force to defend individuals detained abroad and the military censor declared that names of officers from lieutenant to colonel must not be published.

More than 1,300 Palestinian deaths were reported during the offensive in Gaza and the United Nations has led demands that Israel investigate high-profile incidents including the shelling of its facilities.

Private prosecutions are already being prepared. "We are building files on war crimes throughout the chain of command from the top to the local level," said Raji Sourani of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. "We are convinced these have been the most bloody days for Gaza since the occupation and that war crimes were perpetrated against Palestinian civilians."

Courts in six countries, including Britain, have accepted petitions to prosecute alleged war crimes in previous wars. Most notoriously, activists in Belgium used a clause, since removed from the statute, to target the former prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

Accusations of war crimes strike an especially sensitive chord in Israel, a nation founded in the wake of the Holocaust. Comparisons between the long siege of Gaza and the Jewish ghettoes of central Europe draw a vociferous denunciation from the government. Israel insists troops did their best to limit civilian casualties in heavily populated areas where Hamas gunmen were attacking from tunnels and had booby-trapped civilian homes.

Hello Steve:

If your point IS, if WE don't take care of our legal business here at home, the world will do it for us, I agree with you.

Does the world get it right?? That's what a TRIAL will determine - assuming it isn't a kangaroo trial like those Bush was doing. I would assume HIS trial will be fair.

If the Israeli's didn't commit war crimes, then there would be no evidence and they would be freed.

If Bush tortured people, and there's evidence to convict him, he should be convicted.

That IS the way things should go, isn't it?

excon

The victorious rarely stand trail for war crimes, it's the vanquished who are put on trial by those who now hold the power.

Yeah I believe an Israeli soldier would get a fair hearing in the world court..

I do believe ,I do believe, I do I do I do.. .

Since when did a bunch of lawyers get into the business of war? People fail to realize that our enemy has only one rule. That is to destroy ALL non believers no matter how or who. They don't care for their own lives because of some far fetched religious creed telling them they will get their rewards after death. And if they can take a thousand infidels with them so much the better.

Actually ex, I was expecting you to say "go Jews." I'm sure YOU really believe Israeli troops would get a fair hearing like tom does.

My point is the world has a warped sense of who and what the problem is. Either that or they're just so terrified of radical Islam that they're perfectly willing to avert their eyes to Islamic oppression that they're perfectly willing to be good little dhimmis and bow to Muslim demands (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html) rather than confront the real problem. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are easy targets. If the world sets their sights on them and manages to get their big show then they can assuage their consciences and justify their unwillingness (read cowardice) to join in the battle against radical Islam that Bush wasn't afraid to undertake.

Since when did a bunch of lawyers get into the business of war? Hello again, 450:

Since we're a nation of laws... and that would be from the beginning!

So, according to you, we should throw out our laws and get down and dirty.. Wouldn't that mean the terrorists won?? I think it would. In fact, if there weren't any freedom left to defend, they DID win. No?

You must think that our founders were a bunch of namby pambys. They couldn't envision REAL bad guys when they wrote the Constitution... Like bad guys who chop off people's heads... Like that only happened recently...

Dude!

excon

Forget Bush, Gitmo, torture and all that... the new regime is going after the terrorists of Wall Street.


“It offends the sensibilities,” Biden said in an interview on CNBC. “I'd like to throw these guys in the brig (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/01/obama_biden_out.html). I do know what they are thinking, and they are thinking of the same old thing that got us here: Greed. They are thinking: 'Take care of me.' ”

Maybe he can start with Dodd and Barney Frank?

Is Obama really any different than BUsh?


Charges dropped against USS Cole bombing suspect | csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0206/p99s01-duts.html)








The Washington Post writes that the Judge Crawford's decision to dismiss charges without prejudice means that the Obama administration could reinstate charges against Nashiri at a later date. Had the trial continued in defiance of Mr. Obama's request, reinstatement of charges may not have been possible.

The tactic was also used by the Bush administration when it wanted to stop various proceedings at Guantánamo. The Pentagon under Bush dismissed without prejudice charges in six cases and reinstated them later in three of those cases.

If the case had proceeded against Nashiri, a Saudi facing capital charges, a guilty plea could have boxed in the administration. The legal principle of double jeopardy would apply, and it would have been very difficult to move his case to another court, according to defense attorneys.

McClatchy reports that Nashiri's case "presents especially difficult problems for the Obama administration because he is one of three detainees held at Guantánamo that the CIA has admitted were subjected to waterboarding while in secret detention." Agence France-Presse adds that former CIA Director Michael Hayden admitted last February that Nashiri and two other terrorism suspects had been waterboarded while in CIA custody.





Do some of you want this guy dismissed WITH PREJUDUCE because he underwent waterboarding?



G&P

It's a disgrace. I know it's all because of the judge refusing to do the bidding of Obama. But I'd be willing to bet the charges will never be reinstated .

Is Obama really any different than BUsh?


Charges dropped against USS Cole bombing suspect | csmonitor.com (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0206/p99s01-duts.html)
Do some of you want this guy dismissed WITH PREJUDUCE because he underwent waterboarding?
G&P

You mean, without prejudice, a different result.

I heard some Scripture on the weekend and I immediately thought of this topic, or what I think the topic is; Gitmo and interrogation, etc.

It occurred to me that the right leaning folk want to have a second set of rules for terrorist type folk, and the left leaning folk want the same set of rules to apply to everyone equally. I think I have that about right.

So I heard this person who is Christian and right wing read the following and admitted in general terms perhaps our leaders aren't following God's word.

The Scripture is:

Dueteronomy 25:13-16

13 "You shall not have in your bag two kinds of weights, a large and a small"
14 "You shall not have in your house two kinds of weights, a large and a small"
15 "A full and fair weight you shall have, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you".
16 For all who do such things, all who act dishonestly, are an abomination to the LORD your God.


So I submit for discussion, is it the right or the left that is following the word of God when it comes to topics like Gitmo and detainees of conflict?