[tomder55]

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/...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.

[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 .

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

[George_1950]

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

[excon]

For those who are inclined to this sort of thing:

Hello again, George:

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

excon

[George_1950]

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.

[frangipanis]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

Israel warns soldiers of prosecution abroad for Gaza 'war crimes'

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.

[excon]

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

[TexasParent]

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

[tomder55]

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.. .

[450donn]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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 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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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. 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?

[inthebox]

Is Obama really any different than BUsh?


Charges dropped against USS Cole bombing suspect | csmonitor.com

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[George_1950]

Is Obama really any different than BUsh?


Charges dropped against USS Cole bombing suspect | csmonitor.com
Do some of you want this guy dismissed WITH PREJUDUCE because he underwent waterboarding?
G&P

You mean, without prejudice, a different result.

[TexasParent]

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?