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.

Quote:

---

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
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Were we intentionally maiming, mutilating and raping the detainees?

---

Umm, yeah!!
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Quote:

---

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

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

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...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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

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...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