So, *you* want a king. Well, *I* don't.

[MannyGoldstein]

"Gee, in a perfect world we'd prosecute confessed torturers for their crimes, but... it's kind of difficult to prosecute a president and his associates, not really practical. And since we don't torture anyone ourselves anymore, we only have secret extrajudicial renditions to countries that do torture, it shouldn't be a problem anymore."

How much of this do we hear, even on DU?

Listen up: a person who runs the country and who is immune from prosecution is called a king. If he controls the military and the rest of government, and he can do whatever he wants without repercussions, he is a king. (Or queen, of course.)

Moving from a king to a Democratic Republic 200 years ago was a damned fine idea that served Americans well. Worked so well that much of the rest of the world picked up the idea, and went with it too.

Seems like a bunch of folks want to go back to a king. "We can't hold a president responsible... The sky would fall!"

Hear this: When we don't hold the powerful responsible for their actions, that's when the sky falls. Equality under the law is the cornerstone of Democracy: without it, the whole thing falls apart.

[PoliticAverse]

1. "We can't put an American President in Jail"-that's what I was told at the time about Nixon, anyway.

[calimary]

175. I remember that argument, and the concept of the unindicted co-conspirator.

I thought that was some pretty fancy, and pretty cynical word-shuffling.

[GTurck]

220. Well you can...

but the social and political repercussions makes it highly unlikely. That is one reason that Bush has not been prosecuted and may never be. When Nixon resigned it ended his political career and tainted his name as long as we have history books. Punishment need not always be confinement.

[CubicleGuy]

229. If the Republicans really were interested in impeachment...

... wouldn't this be the most likely route to success? Of course, they'd have to go through Bush and Cheney to get there, and I suppose that's why they won't do it. I'm not anxious to see Obama impeached, but I'm not excited about the prospect of ending up with a king, either.

[upaloopa]

2. What about everyone who agreed to the torture.

Let's prosecute them too. After all ignorance and just following orders was no defense in Germany.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Obama said that "just following orders" WAS good enough for him.

He said the CIA didn't need to worry about prosecutions because they were doing what they were told.

We should have known then...

[truedelphi]

78. For those of us old enough to have been taught the lessons of the

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Nuremberg Trials, this is the whitewashing of immorality.

Immoral actions cannot be condoned by any decent society. Once a society condones such, that is the road to ruin.

Sure, tomorrow the sun will shine and the DOW will still be at 16,000 (or whatever)

But eventually such acceptance of evil catches up with the evil person, or the society that has accepted evil.

Nixon had to flee the WH some fifty years ago, reputation in ruins. Long before his moment of perdition, the German people found themselves knee deep in rubble, with their country's magnificent reputation destroyed for at least one generation.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

84. This is the best post ever.

And sadly, it will go unheeded.

[truedelphi]

223. I gladly stipulate I owe much of the weight & wisdom of the remark to the book

I just finished reading: "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code"

I am imagine that this Code is no longer even mentioned in school. We cannot continue on our road to fascism by having our teachers instruct our kids as to what fascism is and how awful it is.

And of course, our President's main motto: Look forward, not back, is a most excellent and instrumental mental conditioning device that allows for us to continue on. If what happened ten years ago doesn't matter, and if what happened yesterday doesn't matter, then we are absolved of all crimes and of all sins, and continue with our behaviors into the rest of today and tomorrow.

Look forward, not back is part of the Big Lie. It instructs us to avoid taking responsibility,as American exceptionalism and those activities that support it are what any modern person would allow and encourage.

With exceptionalism being the new code word for "imperialism." ("Those awful folks in South America are destroying the rain forest. So war with them is okay." Or the meme someone here offered four days go - "Muslims kill gays so it is all right for Israelis to kill Palestinians.&quot

[Fantastic Anarchist]

247. I'm not sure what I'm bothered by more ...

... the moral abyss this country is in, or that the ruling class thinks they can insult my intelligence by thinking I believe or accept the bullshit they are spewing to cover for their crimes.

[ReRe]

202. ^^^^^^^^

+ INFINITY!

[winter is coming]

204. ^^ This. n/t

[nikto]

234. I Agree, absolutely

[cstanleytech]

77. The problem isn't about prosecuting the problem is getting a conviction and

considering that its likely to be a jury trial I wouldnt be willing to wager anything that the government could pull it off and get a jury to convict.

[salib]

133. I disagree

Prosecution is much better than acceptance.

Conviction is even better, but prosecution MUST happen.

[cstanleytech]

140. Problem is these days most prosecutors wont touch a case

unless there is a chance to get a conviction.
Sure the president could probably order the DOJ to proceed but I doubt he will because as president he has to set aside his own feelings and try to do whats best for the country which means he has to weigh the pros and cons of bringing such cases to trial.

Pro in this case is people who committed the horrible crime going to jail.
Risk is the unknown of classified information accidentally becoming public knowledge as well as the negative impact it would have on those working in the varies law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

[ReRe]

206. "What's best for the 'country'"...

... is a catch phrase of the guilty scoundrel apologists of a nation who care more about perceptions, about maintaining the "status quo." It's a cop-out. IMHO.

[cstanleytech]

211. No, its just the cost of living in the real world rather than the pretend one

where everything is strictly right or wrong with nothing in between.
Even the politicians suffer from that limited thinking from time to time like Bush when he said ""Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." which isnt true at all.

[ReRe]

214. So, reality out the door, huh?

... I don't think so. Your "real world" is not a real world at all. Oh, it might look like it, but it isn't. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, cstanlleytech. There IS nothing in between. It's not reality according to the status quo, or reality according to what someone or some group of individuals say it is.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. There IS NO wiggle room between the two.

Can we agree on this fact?

[cstanleytech]

233. "Right is right and wrong is wrong. There IS NO wiggle room between the two." Are you pro choice?

[ReRe]

238. You're GD right I am.

This is MY body, thank you. Not yours, not my daddy's or my mommy's or Gods, and definitely not that SOB that impregnated me without my permission!

[cstanleytech]

239. As am I however on the flip side abortion kills a fetus but there are legit reasons

why someone might choose to have an abortion which makes abortion a complex issue that cannot be lumped into being one of anything just like how the presidents decisions on how to handle issues such as the torture that happened under the prior administration is a complex issue.

[ReRe]

240. Alright now...

... I thought I was the only one that could use a run-on sentence like that.

Ok, let's see. Four words in "on the flip side." There is no flip side.

You're actually equating a woman's right to plan her life as she chooses with the President's "right to normalize torture" in this country? The President's right to not uphold the law of the land, the treaties that we have signed that bar it? Go against International Law?

I can say no more. I digress.

[cstanleytech]

243. No where did I say that the president was or should normalize torture rather I am pointing out

that it is a very complex issue ReRe on how to deal with the fact that it happened just like abortion is a complex issue.

[ReRe]

245. Ahhh..

I see. No harm done. Glad to know. But still, I see neither as complex issues.
Maybe that's because I'm old as time? Carry on, cstanleytech.

[JDPriestly]

180. They should still be tried. Let the jury decide. That is what the

law demands. Let's see whether the defense persuades a jury. Let's see just how wrong the jury thinks the torture was.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. Not since Charles I lost his head.

Or possibly since the Glorious Revolution that saw James II booted off the throne in favour of William III and Mary. (The concept of constitutional monarchy and the idea that not even the king could act outside the law was pretty well established in Britain before American independence.)

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Technically true, but...

The King was subject to law, but not the same law as others.

So yes, technically my post is a bit watered down to make a point, the point itself is correct: equality under the law is a hallmark of the American system of government, not so for kings.

[JayhawkSD]

160. "equality under the law is a hallmark of the American system of government"

equality under the law was a hallmark of the American system of government

There, I fixed that for you.

[salib]

135. Not even really true

The colonies were a part of the empire but had no authority or protections as full British subjects (living in GB e.g.)

Thus, we were rebelling against an absolute tyrant.

[notadmblnd]

5. Seems to me that you should have been screaming about this 6 or 7 years ago.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Many of us were

[notadmblnd]

24. I know, many of us were

Some of those screaming now, weren't though.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. Post #5 kind of sounds like a jab at Manny, though

And I'm pretty sure he always got it.

[notadmblnd]

36. Sorry, My comments seem to be hurting men tonight.

Sensitivities must be running high. Again I apologize.

[FiveGoodMen]

76. No problem.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

95. Huh?

[Capt. Obvious]

190. IKR

[BuelahWitch]

28. Yes we were

We were told to shut up, that he's only been in office x months and any other manner of things that would ridicule anyone who criticized the President.
"He doesn't have a magic wand" was another, which is still being used (see upthread).

[Sheepshank]

92. "We were told to shut up..."

bullshit.

Persecution syndrome didn't work then, and doesn't work now.

[MannyGoldstein]

96. So this never happened?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8464944

Or am I misunderstanding your post?

[BainsBane]

98. Interesting that OP attracted 13 responses

While these recent ones are in the hundreds. I'm glad someone figured it out at the time. Unfortunately, not many seem to have paid attention, judging by the responses to that thread.

I don't see you in that thread. Is there another thread we can see?

[MannyGoldstein]

106. Since you claim to have been a DU reader back then,

who recalls that I never posted negative things about Bush... What's your recollection of the typical number of responses for *any* post back in the day?

[BainsBane]

121. That is not what I claimed

I claimed to be familiar with your recent posts, not from back then. I was indeed a member of DU in its early days but stopped reading around 2005. I was not a reader in 2009, nor did I claim to be.



The great number of responses following Obama's speech last Friday tell me that it is his statement more than the actual decision not to prosecute that disturbs people. Or perhaps it's simply a question of following the loop on cable television.

I cannot help but note that you repeatedly dodge questions by asking more questions. You also fail to hold yourself to the same standards of evidence to which you insist others maintain (links, for example). And to anticipate your excuse: no, posts in this thread do not confirm what you claim in the OP. The one that comes closest was posted after you insisted there were posts here demonstrating exactly what you assert. The posts are defending Obama, not Bush, which is precisely what I've seen over the past several days. That is why I left that initial comment about the intent of your OP. Your responses in this thread (as I linked to in other post) support that initial impression.

[MannyGoldstein]

132. "Since I am to believe that you are suddenly concerned about Bush"

I have a news flash for you: Bush's reign ended on January 20th, 2009. What would you propose I do these days, write a daily reminder that he was a horrific president?

What kind of person infers that someone is "suddenly concerned about Bush" because they haven't posted about Bush recently? I haven't seen *you* post about the hijacking of the Achille Lauro lately, so I'll assume that you think it was a good thing.

I find it incredibly unlikely that you couldn't find this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025341624#post7

in this thread, but here it is.

And that's it for the night, your snipe hunts grow tiresome.

[BainsBane]

136. That doesn't constitute support for Bush

It is an argument for why the poster believes Obama didn't proceed. It is a view supported by Obama administration lawyers who feared a coup if the administration proceeded with prosecuting war crimes.

http://www.justice-integrity.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=261: obama-team-feared-coup-death-if-he-prosecuted-war-crimes&catid=21&Itemid=114

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/07/1014303/-Obama-Advisors-Feared-a-Coup-if-the-Administration-Prosecuted-War-Crimes

I find the argument difficult to believe myself, but it seems that some Obama officials did believe it, or so this former administration lawyer claims.


Your pointing to that particular post which is arguing about Obama's actions also indicates your outrage in the OP is actually directed at Obama rather than Bush, which was the point of my initial response to this thread, not some rampant illiteracy you think afflicts me.

[MannyGoldstein]

138. Your response is orthogonal to my OP.

i.e., it has nothing to do with what I stated in the OP. I wrote nothing about support for Bush.

Nothing.

Nada.

Bupkes.

Zilch.

Zed.

Naught.

Did you not read my OP, does my writing suck, does your reading comprehension suck, or are you a troll? There are probably a few other possibilities, but they're much less likely.

[BainsBane]

149. There is a thing about discussion

Whereas people like to think the other person reads what their responses. You insisted the OP was about Bush. I asked you for links showing people thought Bush should be above the law.

I asked here:

Have people here really been arguing that Bush should be above the law? That he shouldn't be held accountable? I'd like to see links to such posts.

I asked you to provide links to posts by people who believe Bush should be above the law

55. I have asked for links from you

to substantiate your argument that people imagine Bush to be above the law.

You screamed at me twice telling me they were in this very thread. They were not, and the post you link to argues Obama's position, not Bush's.

Now you say

I wrote nothing about support for Bush.

After insisting the OP was not about Obama but Bush, you have backtracked on yourself. You can't keep track of your own claims, and that is why they fall flat.

[MannyGoldstein]

151. One of us is nuts.

Goodnight.

(Jurrors: it could well be me that's nuts. Please send me the results, thanks.)

[BainsBane]

155. Speaking of above the law

I'll post them myself, since you requested the results.



On Tue Aug 5, 2014, 09:35 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

One of us is nuts.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5343087

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

Calling someone nuts is an OTT personal attack. Speaking of above the law, Manny must think he is or he wouldn't make personal attacks like this.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Aug 5, 2014, 09:43 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough is enough.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't agree with the alerter's claim this "is an OTT personal attack." It actually seems to be quite mild compared to what I've seen get voted to "leave" by juries recently.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give it a rest with going after people you don't like, this is mild, at best. leave

Thank you.
------------------------------
The problem with name calling is it only highlights the person's inability to make a substantive argument.

[JDPriestly]

183. If Obama fails to prosecute because he fears a coup, we have

a very, very, very, very serious problem on our hands.

Further evidence that we no longer have a constitutional government.

The Constitution provides for trial by jury granting due process to the defendant. It does not provide for coups. Not under any circumstances.

If the torturers cannot be prosecuted because of a fear of a coup, we have already had the coup.

[BobbyBoring]

203. We have had the coup.

It's beginning was in November of 1963 and it was concluded in November of 2000. What else could explain the complete transformation of Obama the candidate and Obama the POTUS?
All he's doing is playing ball with the PTB.

[ReRe]

213. ^^^^^^

x INFINITY

[JDPriestly]

182. As I recall there was quite a bit of discussion about the torture

accusations at the time. There was a congressional hearing, and one of the worst things about the scandal is that the Obama administration's prosecutors put the whistleblower, Kiriakou in jail for 30 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kiriakou

[DeSwiss]

153. The hell you say!

[SomethingFishy]

32. You can bet Manny was, and maybe if Obama didn't come out and

give the criminals a pass he wouldn't need to do it again.

I watched the ease with which Obama claimed "Yeah we made some mistakes, we tortured a few folks", and it made me want to throw up.


George Carlin was right. It's a big club and we ain't invited.

[kath]

81. I've felt like I've been on the verge of puking ever since I first heard the horrid statement last

wweek. Soooo disgusting

[BainsBane]

57. That assumes concerns extend beyond

what makes the loop on cable TV.

[JDPriestly]

181. We did.

[KittyWampus]

6. Yes you do want a 'king'. As do your buddies on DU. You want an executive

who acts with no need of Congress and has some kind of magic wand.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. True...the OP wanted Obama to ignore the debt ceiling

of course the ceiling is essentially determined by Congress depending on how much money they allow the Treasury Department to borrow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023772833

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Ah, your obfuscation for the day

I, like Bill Clinton and many or most legal scholars, believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution holds sway:

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, … shall not be questioned.”

And that our President was simply being pusillanimous.

[truedelphi]

82. I' m somewhat puzzled as to how dead bodies piling up in Gaza,

as the city is leveled, or how the tortured corpses of prisoners of Abu Gharib, have any equivocal comparison with debt ceilings.
Gotta say, Manny, I stand with you. (If you will have me standing there.)

[MannyGoldstein]

85. You tattle with the fake tattle you have

Not the fake tattle you *wish* you had.

[frylock]

12. not a magic wand, just negotiating skills

[Cali_Democrat]

18. The OP is about prosecuting torturers.

How would the negotiation for prosecuting torturers work?

Obama: OK, Republicans. You let me prosecute Dick Cheney and I won't prosecute Bush. Deal?

[BrotherIvan]

27. Oh, that's right

The minority party in government is what made him stand up and call torturers patriots! I'm so glad we have a Democratic President.

Exactly how does the DOJ have to negotiate with House Republicans in prosecuting war crimes?

How about how the administration actively worked to prevent international courts from prosecuting according to the Geneva Convention and threatened Spain for seeking indictments? How about how the administration is now working with the current as well as former Bush admin CIA to redact the report? Did the Republicans make him do it?

[Cali_Democrat]

31. You missed my point.

Exactly how does the DOJ have to negotiate with House Republicans in prosecuting war crimes?

It's up to the President and his DOJ to determine whether or not to Prosecute people like Bush and Cheney. House Republicans would have no say.

There isn't any negotiating involved.

That's why I didn't understand why the poster I was replying to mentioned negotiating skills.

There's no negotiating involved when it comes to the DOJ prosecuting people like Bush and Cheney for war crimes. It's either done or it isn't.

[BrotherIvan]

33. I reread your post and if that was your meaning, I did misinterpret it

I have seen this argument a lot the last few days, that Obama couldn't prosecute because Republicans would not let him, and it is wholly untrue.

[truedelphi]

232. I like your thinking on this, Cali Democrat. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Negotiations? What negotiations?

Sign on to the ICC, hand over the criminals (excuse me, 'the alleged criminals') and the evidence. Let the chips fall where they may.

[Cali_Democrat]

63. There is no negotiating.

They're either prosecuted by Obama or they aren't. The decision is Obama's and his DOJ.

BTW, the ICC requires treaty approval so 2/3 of the Senate would have to approve.

Good luck with that.

[ReRe]

215. ^^^^^^^^

Hear! Hear!

[noiretextatique]

54. a start would have been not caving

by claiming we should "move on" and dismissing the possibility of prosecution. As to the press conference, a strong statement condemning torture would have been great. instead, he said some folks tortured some other folks because they were hard-working real patriots

[Cali_Democrat]

60. There is no negotiating when it comes to this

They're either prosecuted or they aren't. The decision rests solely with Obama and his DOJ.

Simple. Straightforward.

[TheKentuckian]

118. What negotiations? I Don't Recall Congress voting to prosecute Timothy McVeigh.

It isn't their jurisdiction that power is vested in the Executive branch. Congress writes the laws and the Executive enforces them.

There are no negotiations.

[Cali_Democrat]

124. There are no negotiations.

The other poster is the one who brought up negotiating skills.

As you can see above, I made clear the decision to prosecute is Obama's and there is no negotiating.

I'm puzzled as to how negotiating skills are needed for this when there are no negotiations.

[TheKentuckian]

137. I don't get that either. Prosecute or be complicit, there is nothing to barter.

[Cali_Democrat]

139. The US is party to the Geneva Conventions

So I believe it is illegal to be complicit. Maybe we'll get Warren as Prez and she can prosecute both Bush and Obama...toss 'em in jail.

[TheKentuckian]

142. It is always illegal to be willfully complicit in a felony.

I don't know what potential candidates will do.

[Cali_Democrat]

147. If a potential presidential candidate said...

...they would like to prosecute Bush for his war crimes and Obama for his complicity, would you support that?

[BobbyBoring]

201. I would in a heart beat.

I really believed Obama was going to set things straight. "Restore our standing in the international ccommunity" are the words he said as I recall. As many have said, to do nothing is to be complicit.

[Cali_Democrat]

152. I think I'm gonna create a poll on this. I wanna see what DU thinks.

[7962]

146. The President did what he had to do to stop a complete disaster from happening.

His personal feelings may have been different, but trying to prosecute Bush or the evil Cheney would have been a terrible mistake for him and the democratic party. It would have torn the nation further apart and likely resulted in him losing in '12.
Its not going to happen now and its not going to happen in the future, so we may as well spend the efforts on GETTING things done that CAN be done. Or we can keep posting "prosecute Bush" OPs every 10-12 weeks for eternity just to keep everyones blood pumping.

[Autumn]

38. just negotiating skills

you made my day

[MannyGoldstein]

16. "I welcome their hatred" - FDR

You are wrong.

I simply want a President who brings a gun to a gun fight, not a spork still in its box.

[Sheepshank]

94. ahhh so you DO want a little bit of a King

or maybe a lotta bit of a dictator.

[MannyGoldstein]

97. Are you saying that FDR was a king? Dictator? nt

[Sheepshank]

99. Funny you should assume FDR in my response

and completely ignore your own commentary "I simply want a President who brings a gun to a gun fight, not a spork still in its box."

[MannyGoldstein]

101. FDR was in the post you responded to

As to the gun... Notice I said gun to a gunfight, not drone to a gunfight. That was ror a reason - the Executive and Legislature are co-equal.

[Sheepshank]

104. So where does my response make even a little bit of sense?

own up to it Manny, you WANT Obama to be a King/dictator, but only sometimes and only when you think it necessary. There is no fine line here, it's when Manny feels it is appropriate. Regular as clockwork you will use Obama's choice in this unilateral decision making as a bludgeon. It will always be Obama's wrong decision and you will always be there to spin the record of your
king/not king op.

[MannyGoldstein]

108. It makes sense nowhere, as far as I can figger. nt

[Sheepshank]

112. ya...i added to it,

...thinking that while you like to smack others around for having poor reading comprehension, you invoke the same problem to avoid the real issue.

YOU WANT OBAMA TO BE KING.....but only sometimes. You want to make sure you can bludgeon him in your OP's when he plays king and when he doesn't. Your op is the most disingenuous yet.

[MannyGoldstein]

114. Surely, you can point to some specific links that demonstrate this

Smack me down hard.

[Sheepshank]

188. Just from this thread:

You don't want Obama to be king....look at your own heading in the OP

You want Obama to be King..."I simply want a President who brings a gun to a gun fight, not a spork still in its box."

I'm not going to look all over DU for all of your diappointments that Obama didn't act unilaterally to acheive your goals. That fact that you attempt to deny that it has ever happened, or pretend that it never happened since it isn't being thrown in your face over and over sound more like Faux News tactic.

[MannyGoldstein]

194. So, short story: you have no links.

My disappointment is with Obama's failure to fight like a sonnofabitch for the 99%, and with his negative actions - "free" trade, cutting Social Security, etc.

FDR lost fights - but he went down swinging.

[Sheepshank]

205. Caught with your pants down..you got you direct quotes from this thread bwah haaa haaa

and you want links too.

Fail.

bwahh ahha ha

[truedelphi]

241. Manny had the patience to deal with you. I prefer

Utilizing Ignore function.

[Sheepshank]

246. Apparently I'm not on "ignore" yet

as if your threat was some great loss?

[MannyGoldstein]

115. Please! Link to some of my posts that illustrate your claim.

I look forward to it.

[Sheepshank]

189. your nobility is overshadowed by your own past rhetoric...look above for example

[JaneyVee]

143. Yes, with 70+ in the senate and 300+ in the House

He might as well have been a king. He's still my favorite king though.

[MannyGoldstein]

144. True, but all was not easy

FDR has 635 vetoes, about one per week.

[ReRe]

217. Excusime'

... what is wanted is a whole lot of Constitution and Justice and Democracy. Anyone who advocates against that combination are those who want to be king or who want to be lead by a king.

[Zorra]

48. Actually...that would be me, dear

[noiretextatique]

50. bull...Obama's torture comments were ridiculous

with all the folksy crap and talk of real patriots. he deserves this criticism.

[BainsBane]

62. Ironic isn't it?

[beerandjesus]

193. That's right, if we oppose torture, it means we want a king....

....King RAND PAUL!

[Laelth]

7. We must maintain the peaceful transition of power.

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 06:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Obama almost certainly had to promise to release Bush and his gang from all criminal liability in order to assure the peaceful transition of power that occurred in early 2009.

Yes, this represents a miscarriage of justice, but it must be done to prevent a President from declaring martial law and refusing to surrender the reigns of power. Were that to happen, we'd have precisely the kind of dictatorship that you imagine.

-Laelth

[winter is coming]

9. How did you get from legal prosecutions to martial law?

And couldn't not calling out the Bush Administrations' "legalization" of torture encourage future incidents of redefining the boundaries, including legitimizing martial law?

[Laelth]

13. If Bush knew he would be prosecuted (and possibly executed) ...

... he would have never surrendered the reigns of power. He did so only because he was assured (I speculate) that he would not be prosecuted. That's the essence of the peaceful transition of power.

Are there problems with this arrangement? Yes. Does it "encourage" bad behavior? Possibly, yes. But at least it lets us transfer power without having to go through repeated civil wars.

-Laelth

[winter is coming]

30. I'd like to think that Obama had some sort of figurative gun to his head. n/t

[BainsBane]

71. As strange as it seems

Obama's lawyers say they did fear a coup. I find it rather unbelievable myself, but that is what they claimed in 2011.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025333952

[SomethingFishy]

34. While I usually agree with you, I have to differ here..

It looks to me like you are using your speculation about what might happen as a defense against bringing charges against the criminal acts of the Bush Administration.

We don't know what would have happened. We really don't. The horrors we perpetrated on the middle east should be answered for.

I gotta tell you Laelth, I have had some issues with Obama but I was always hopeful and never downright angry at the man, up until I saw the press conference where his comment "Yeah, we made some mistakes, and we tortured a few folks" was so blasé that I almost gagged.

[Laelth]

39. The President did not handle himself well in that interview.

With that I agree wholeheartedly, but I invite you to consider the founding fathers and the England from which they rebelled. Prior to our revolution, the English monarchy switched back and forth several times between Anglican and Catholic monarchs. When an Anglican monarch came to power, he or she would lop off tons of the heads of his or her Catholic enemies. When a Catholic monarch came to power, he or she would lop off the heads of his or her Anglican enemies. Our founders didn't want to replicate these atrocities, and they agreed (early on) to always honor the peaceful transition of power (meaning that no former President can be prosecuted for acts he or she committed while in office). This principle is not written down anywhere that carries any legal weight, but it is practiced in the United States, and there's a good reason for that.

Justice may be thwarted, but that's better than a dictatorship or a civil war.

-Laelth

[zeemike]

58. That sounds like peaceful transition at the point of a gun.

And if such a threat was made by Bush it would be clear he was a war criminal and an un-american dictator wanabe...treason against the constitution.
And the last thing we need is negotiation with terrorist especially if they are the president.

[Caretha]

74. Yesy Indeedy

Your words -> Are there problems with this arrangement? Yes

Being short sighted is not an attribute. The repercussions that you are visiting on my children & grandchildren is not acceptable, just so you can have "no problems" in your lifetime.

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. That is a possibility/scenario people here couldn't fathom ...

People don't seem to understand that prosecuting bush/cheney for war crimes that were political decisions essentially approved by congress would be toxic for our nation.

Are there problems with this arrangement? Yes. Does it "encourage" bad behavior? Possibly, yes. But at least it lets us transfer power without having to go through repeated civil wars.

The best thing about playing world leader on the internutz is you don't have to consider the "what's next" and more, one can just log off.

[BrotherIvan]

156. Please, honestly

I appeal to you as we have met before and I respect your posts, please tell me you don't think the United States should shrink from prosecuting war crimes--TORTURE, which is illegal internationally without question--because of political expediency? I know that's not what you really intend to say. This goes far beyond Obama as a single person, this is a decision that effects our laws for the future.

How can the US ever say anything about human rights if we do not prosecute one of the most despicable possible acts? How would holding war criminals accountable be "toxic"? How is being afraid of a minority party which has lost the last two national elections an excuse? Why are Democrats afraid of what they will say? The world would stand with the moral position.

And as a point of fact, the Administration did not need to prosecute on its own. Countries all over the world would have tried them according to the Geneva Convention. They could have been tried in The Hague. The Administration actively blocked that. This is not about having the political will, this is about protecting war criminals. This was a decision made and it has very dire consequences for our country and our standing in the world.

[1StrongBlackMan]

212. What Countries have sought to bring Bush/Cheney to the Hague? ...

But please understand ... I do not support acts of inhumanity, including torture or war ... for any reason. However, I live in the real world and refuse to allow the internutz to reduce a very complex issue to (IMO) a simple-minded, "right" or "wrong", "higher purpose" exercise. Specifically, I find all these calls for President Obama to prosecute Bush, Cheney, Brennan and others for war crimes, to be nothing more than high-minded, liberal (maybe, anti-Democratic/anti-President Obama) masturbation with no connection to how the real world works.

I believe that this is, at once, dangerous to America, and a display of ignorance of what prosecutions can accomplish. On the first point, I strongly believe such a prosecution would legitimize, not only the second-guess; but the prosecution, of a previous administration's political decision making ... a decision that was made with the knowledge of, if not blessing from, members of Congress ... that is the danger.

And, most that have worked in criminal justice are well beyond the myth that the threat of incarceration, or even execution, has much of a deterrent effect on (most) high-level crimes. My experience has it that high level offenders only consider the threat, after the crime has been committed ... and then, only during any prosecution. And further, after a conviction ... most high level offenders will tell you that if faced with the same circumstances and knowing the outcome, they would have likely still committed the crime ... only maybe in a different manner. What's more, it has near zero deterrent effect on others likely to engage in similar crimes.

[BrotherIvan]

221. There must be some things we as humans can say is unequivocally wrong

If we hold people in the highest positions accountable to the same laws as common folk, then we are establishing that laws apply to all. That includes presidents, dictators, rich bankers, etc. And these trials have happened, for the good of humanity, in modern times. Ceaușescu of Romania, Milošević of Yugoslavia, Pinochet, Efraín Ríos Montt both in Spain and home country Guatemala, and of course, the Nuremberg Trials.

Here is Richard Clarke, former terrorism czar who resigned in 2003 after the Iraq invasion.

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/2/ex_counterterrorism_czar_richard_clarke_bush

"I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes," Clarke says. "Whether that would be productive or not, I think, is a discussion we could all have. But we have established procedures now with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers of countries have been indicted and have been tried. So the precedent is there to do that sort of thing. And I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not it would be useful to do that in the case of members of the Bush administration. It’s clear that things that the Bush administration did — in my mind, at least — were war crimes."

This isn't a nuance argument and it certainly isn't an anti-Obama liberal plot. This is about saying those who commit crimes will be held accountable. That money and power will not protect you. To argue that justice is "dangerous to America" is twisted logic. The administration decided to lie us into war. There is plenty of evidence that it was planned before Bush was even in office. That is not a political decision, we have plenty of laws against those very actions. They broke the law. It would be a sign to the world that the laws apply, even in America.

There are many things which may seem as though they would lead to major social unrest at the time. But they were done because they were right. If we used that as a rubric, we never would have things like the Civil Rights Act. If our nation is so fragile that we need to let the highest criminals off the hook, then we are doomed. If we can no longer point to things such as torture and war crimes and say, unequivocally that this is wrong and those who commit them will be held accountable, then any person convicted of a crime should be able to appeal on the grounds that laws don't matter.

[1StrongBlackMan]

225. I agree ...

there are (IMO) things we as humans can say is unequivocally wrong ... torture and all wars being two of them.

None the less, there must be a reckoning of what is "right" versus the effect of enforcing that "right." In my opinion, holding those from past administrations to account, does not out weigh the harm that would result ... as, as I mentioned, it would not deter future wrongs.

[BrotherIvan]

226. Thanks for the discussion

We don't agree on everything, but I always appreciate reasoned responses.

[1StrongBlackMan]

227. As do I ...

It is so easy to just call the other party "dumber than dog sh!t" and turn off.

We don't have to agree on everything, or even anything, to have a discussion. Thanks.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

150. That is the bullshittiest argument I've ever heard.

Your focus is on "power" when it should be on "justice."

[rickyhall]

10. The great experiment has failed

The subject died.

[BainsBane]

11. Now what do you want to prosecute Obama for today?

[neverforget]

14. That would be Bush but you know that

[BainsBane]

17. No, I don't know that

at all. I'll wait to hear it from Manny.

[neverforget]

23. Oh my

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Was that OP really so difficult to understand?

Mind blowing.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Might you have a reading problem?

This is like the fifth post in the 24 hours where you totally misunderstood very simple language.

Totally. Misread.

[BainsBane]

25. Tell me what you wanted me to understand then

Because I don't recall your having a thing to say about Bush. In fact, you often tell us how something Obama has done is the worst ever.

Also your talking here about not wanting a monarch while most of your OPs vest all hope and responsibility in the office of the presidency, whether current or prospective presidents, is the height of irony.

Have people here really been arguing that Bush should be above the law? That he shouldn't be held accountable? I'd like to see links to such posts.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Read. My. Fucking. Post.

It's in English, I swear to Goddess. It's really, really easy to understand.

I'm tired of your attacks based on stuff I never wrote, followed by word salad and running away when you're asked to simply demonstrate you claims.

Just yesterday you claimed that A number of people describe concern for sexism, homophobia and racism as Third Way, which you couldn't remotely substantiate. The other day you lit into me for misusing the phrase "Constitutional Crisis", which I hadn't remotely used.

Please. Settle down. Breathe. Read the words on the screen. Consider their meaning. Things will go better for everyone if you follow those simple steps.

[BainsBane]

43. Links to substantiate the straw man you erect in your OP?

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Which straw man is that?

Be specific. One or two sentences is all that should be needed.

[BainsBane]

49. You could read my last post to you

Where I asked you to provide links to posts by people who believe Bush should be above the law. Since I am to believe that you are suddenly concerned about Bush, I'd like to see evidence for how you came to write this OP.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. So you were on DU when Bush was President?

Your profile indicates you joined 2012.

So if you have some expertise on my posts about Bush, then either:

1. you were a different user back when Bush was president - what username?, or
2. you've (bizarrely) gone back and read my thousands of posts during his presidency, or
3. you're just totally, utterly making stuff up

Which is it?

Your inability to find any posts that demonstrate my claim, EVEN IN THIS VERY FUCKING THREAD, is some testament to some manner of epic something on your part.

[BainsBane]

55. I have asked for links from you

to substantiate your argument that people imagine Bush to be above the law.

[MannyGoldstein]

59. THEY ARE RIGHT IN THIS THREAD

One of us needs serious help, I'm honestly not sure which one.

[BainsBane]

61. There are no links in the OP

and you have provided none in this subthread that substantiate the idea that people think BUSH above the law. If there is a post that does, please provide the link to that.

Last night you were insistent that I provide links to substantiate my points. Now you refuse to do so.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. THERE ARE POSTS THAT SAY THIS RIGHT IN THIS THREAD

I need a drink.

[BainsBane]

70. So I must read through the whole thread

because what was posted after you posted this OP is evidence for why you decided to post this thread?

(I have read more than half of it and have yet to see anyone defending Bush).

[BainsBane]

73. No there are not

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 10:32 PM - Edit history (1)

There are no posts saying George Bush is above the law. There are posts arguing about Obama, which is why I figured your post was--as usual--about him. Your own comments in this thread seem to support that view.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025341624#post16

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025341624#post42

I think your issue is not that I misunderstand your posts, but that I understand them too well.

[Number23]

105. But you gotta love the calories burned in the (typical) pretense of innocence

I think your issue is not that I misunderstand your posts, but that I understand them too well.

[BainsBane]

130. I do believe that is the chief issue

and obviously I'm not the only one.

[MannyGoldstein]

131. So the problem is that you can read things that I didn't write.

I agree - you read lots and lots of things that don't exist, and when that's pointed out, you claim that it's true they don't actually exist, but you just know they're there.

Lurking.

Waiting.

[BainsBane]

134. You refuse to provide any evidence

to indicate your outrage is about Bush, and your other posts in this thread suggest otherwise. I don't know why you're so reluctant to say you're angry at Obama. You haven't been in the past.

[sibelian]

172. Well, that's just dreadful.

Gosh.

[BainsBane]

173. As opposed to this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5337493

How exactly does your moral judgment contribute to this discussion? Would you have preferred I called him a "fibber" or "crazy," as the other poster has done? Would that pass your threshold of not "dreadful"?

[sibelian]

199. Oh!

So Manny asking YOU for evidence for something you made up on the inside of your head is bad, but you asking Manny for evidence refuting something you made up on the inside of your head is good?

I see a pattern here.

[BainsBane]

45. I see, no greater challenge to the constituion

should not be construed as meaning a crisis. What then does it mean? And the completely ahistorical nature of the comment should be disregarded?

"Lit into you?" That's what you call that post? Really? Because I disagreed with you?

[MannyGoldstein]

47. The language is clear.

There's nothing to discuss.

[BainsBane]

52. And zero evidence to substantiate it

Naturally you aren't interested in discussion. You can't support your argument.

[zeemike]

64. "And zero evidence to substantiate it"

I just love that hyperbole...and is always used when there is differences on the evidence presented.
It can never be little, scant, or questionable, but zero, nada, zip...because zero is such a absolute number and gives certainty to the position taken..

[BainsBane]

75. "Hyperbole" I backed up with copious evidence

To which the OP has no substantive response. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5325586

The statement "what greater threat" is comparative. It indicates that incident of Senate spying to be the greatest threat to the Constitution. To make such a claim requires some historical knowledge and an ability to engage with previous "threats to the constitution." He now insists he did not mean "crisis." Whatever he meant, he did not support it.

[winter is coming]

67. Yeah, about that thread you read three times...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5342208

[BainsBane]

83. Right, you know what I actually said

Just like I "actually" called you a Marxist? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5342280

[Logical]

113. WOW, someone alerted this post. They lost 1-6!! Results below.......

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a nasty, condescending post. Good grief.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 5, 2014, 10:27 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What's the big deal? Manny is just expressing how he feels. His post is not that harsh about anything.
signed:Bluejazz
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid alert! If you want to alert then post a real reason. You are just whining!
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Nasty and condescending. Something Manny gets away with way too often.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nasty? Condescending? BS. Manny is right on about certain posters tactics. Go Manny!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[MannyGoldstein]

116. At this point, DU probably has a dedicated server to handle the alerts on me

Thanks for sharing!

[Logical]

117. Sure. Good luck! nt

[bahrbearian]

218. I think you need to put some people on ignore

and tell them. They are just trying to trip you up. and they make me dizzy with the round and round. Plus they are only working on their post count.

[Capt. Obvious]

192. Damn it

Almost a 24 hr alert time out.

[BrotherIvan]

29. I think the word you're searching for is "sanctimonious"

[n2doc]

40. And on another thread I have DU'ers who say the law can be ignored

Because of some Clintonian word twisting (what the word "is" is type of word twisting)

The Icon worshippers have no shame, and as far as I am concerned are just as bad as the 30%ers who stuck by W through everything. Just as Bad.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Which is worse?

A wolf, or a wolf in sheep's clothing?

[zeemike]

65. A wolf is better.

Last edited Wed Aug 6, 2014, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

Because you can recognize them coming from a distance...and one in sheep clothing is not usually recognized until there is blood on the grass.

[TDale313]

128. Just curious- are you saying...

That makes the wolf worse? If so, how? I'd rather see the danger coming, personally.

[zeemike]

148. That was unclear.

I will edit it to a wolf is better.

[BainsBane]

174. Is the wolf Bush?

[BainsBane]

80. Dare I ask

which law you are referring to?

[BrotherIvan]

158. The Geneva Convention

[BainsBane]

159. Didn't Bush screw around with that?

attach some statement modifying our signature of it?

[BrotherIvan]

161. Yes, but it does not matter in international court

This should be tried in the Hague according to the Geneva Convention

Torture and cruel treatment are also prohibited by specific provisions of the four Geneva Conventions.[4] In addition, “torture or inhuman treatment” and “wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health” constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and are war crimes under the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The argument that Obama could not have prosecuted them in the US may be partly true, but the administration actively blocked countries seeking to prosecute including threats from the State Department to Spain. The reason why Bush and Cheney are always canceling trips is because of threats to arrest them for war crimes. All the DOJ had to do was extradite them. They could have then tried the military and CIA personnel here.

[BainsBane]

162. The senate refused to ratify the International Criminal Court

The Hague doesn't have jurisdiction. And without a pending indictment, what would they be extradited for? I think it has to proceed under US law unless or until the Senate ratifies the treating joining the ICC.

[BrotherIvan]

164. But other countries could and did try to indict them

Why could they not be extradited under those indictments? We extradite people all the time and since these crimes were not all committed on US soil, the US does not have sole jurisdiction.

[BainsBane]

166. Yes, there is a concept under human rights law

called universal jurisdiction. It is meant to deal with situations precisely like these where responsible individuals are powerful and act with seeming impunity. The Spanish Judge, Báltazar Garzón, who indicted Pinochet sought to enforce that theory. However, he was suspended and can no longer serve as a judge in Spain. His actions were very controversial and led to his being prosecuted on unrelated charges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garz%C3%B3n

I thought I remember something about Spanish courts acting on behalf of torture victims, but I think with the backlash again Garzón that might be over. I don't know the details very well though.

I did attend a talk by Garzón in which he argued that the concept of universal jurisdiction would be expanding. I found reference to a German prosecution against Rumsfeld at the link above.

And CCR’s case against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, previously filed in Germany, is one avenue the Center is pursuing to ensure that U.S. officials can also be held accountable for torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

[BrotherIvan]

169. That is interesting information

I did not know about Rumsfeld. I know it won't be easy, but there must be some way to uphold the law. The Bush administration pissed off so many people around the world that there would be some help. Cases could be brought by those who were kidnapped from their country. So many cases have been thrown out of court.

I like Warpy's comment that it took a while to get Pinochet but they got him. Perhaps a few administrations from now, once those involved are out of power, there will be justice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5342163

[winter is coming]

167. Has Bush left the U.S. since Obama took office? I seem to recall at least one time

where he was about to take a trip, and some country in Europe (Spain???) said they'd arrest him for war crimes if they got the chance and suddenly Bush decided not to go on the trip.

[BrotherIvan]

168. Yes, he has traveled but does keep canceling trips if there is threat of arrest

Cheney too. It doesn't help that they are protected by the might of the US.

[L0oniX]

109. +1

[XRubicon]

41. *You* *Don't* *Know* *What* *I* *Want*

*Yup*

</end trite>

[JoeyT]

44. Sadly the "There's nothing he can do!!!111" crowd can't even make that argument

if they're being honest. He defended torture and attacked people that opposed it. And predictably the people everyone knew would defend absolutely anything are defending this, because of course they are.

Edit: If anything, it's less like a king and more like a high priest granting absolution. Once Obama says it was ok, it's ok, and anyone that disagrees is a heretic.

[SammyWinstonJack]

72. +1!

If anything, it's less like a king and more like a high priest granting absolution. Once Obama says it was ok, it's ok, and anyone that disagrees is a heretic.

[MannyGoldstein]

88. Well, there's the "he can't tell the DOJ what to do!" argument

"How would it look if the DOJ wasn't independent?" I was asked when DOJ was fighting for DOMA. "Normal", I answered to a chorus of "Ratfucker!".

And then Obama announced he'd told DOJ to stop fighting for DOMA.

Of course, nobody took a moment to apologize...

[sibelian]

170. Of course they didn't take a moment to apologise, dear Manny.

They don't have any political opinions. They have a bunch of Internet message board tactics.

[WillyT]

51. K & R !!!

[Warpy]

56. I'm sure it will be prosecuted

but not right now, when the government is top heavy with neocons.

Remember, it took over 30 years to get Pinochet and for much the same reason, the government was still full of his toadies.

But they got him.

So will we.

[BrotherIvan]

157. ^^This!^^

I rec your post a million x trillion. That should be an OP because I have been so vaklempt I had not thought of it that way. Maybe it is too soon and too many deals were struck. But there is no statute of limitation on war crimes that I know of.

[Warpy]

176. Exactly. Some of them get away with it by dying in bed

and Cheney will likely be in that category, terrified because he knows he's leaving his money and power behind. Many of the younger pimples on the world's ass will still be alive to prosecute 20+ years from now, when attrition has reduced neocon power in government to a very small amount.

[BrotherIvan]

177. Yes, I think Cheney and maybe Rumsfeld might die first. Bush will become a severe alcoholic

The guilt on him really shows. Look at Lee Atwater or OJ, their deeds quite literally haunted them.

I have hopes for the others. Those smiling service men and women make me ill. The sickest part is that not only those who ordered it, but those who enriched themselves on it will walk. I wish a very long and painful death for old Dick.

[Warpy]

178. Oh, it will be

If rejecting a transplanted heart over time feels anything like the mild rejection I've had in my corneal transplant, he will die in a lot of pain as he begins to drown in his own fluids.

[hootinholler]

68. When has a President been held responsible before?

Not that I'm opposed to a trial.

[BainsBane]

79. Nixon and Andrew Johnson

But both were in office at the time.

[heaven05]

200. yeah and their

crime was not war against a sovereign nation with WMD's Nixon's war was to stay in power over america and americans. His minions got busted. But come to think of it, I guess because so many people knew Bush was a Pretender, he had to go to war against saddamn to distract americans from that truth. He did a damn good job of it too. He was able to steal another election after that. No completely different scenario with Obama and the ex-Pretender

[99Forever]

69. Well put, sir. n/t

[Spitfire of ATJ]

86. Don't you know the ultimate punishment for them is to lose their job in power?

Since Bush and Cheney are no longer in power than there's nothing you can do to them.

Move along, get over it.

Forget.

[BainsBane]

87. The purpose of such prosecutions is not to punish them per se

but to establish that this nation does not abide such practices, that we will not be what they sought to make us. The problem is, however, we are that nation. Our prison system demonstrates as much.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

91. America is full of myths....

Like that whole "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" thing.

[BainsBane]

93. Indeed.

I think my frustration with many on this board is that they so buy into the national mythology.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. That's because many haven't traveled.

[TDale313]

107. Well put. Sadly true. n/t

[Sheepshank]

89. Funny type of hypocrisy

since I read over and over on Du how many WANT Obama to act unilaterally and as a dictator on so many subject matters.

I guess it depends on the weather, the phase of the moon, the alignment of personal preferences and invocation of hypocrisy when persons want Obama to act like a king and they they do not.

[BainsBane]

90. I know

That's the amazing thing. They seem to have no idea of how their expectations of Obama and hopes for the next President reflects the kind of absolute monarchy the OP criticizes above.

[sibelian]

196. Well it WOULD be hypocritical if Manny was advocating the prosecution of Obama for war crimes

AND there was anything "regal" being expected of Obama in wishing he used his actual presidential powers, which are not those of a king. But there isn't any real hypocrisy at all in pointing out that treating a Republican war criminal as being immune from prosecution AND wanting Obama to use the ACTUAL executive powers that being a president entails, as the latter has nothing to do with being a king and the former does.

So, whilst it may appear hypocritical to you, that's primarily because you wouldn't know hypocrisy if it exploded in your face out of an exploding hypocrisy bomb placed in your lap by the International Society of Hypocrites on an annual hypocrisy junket.

Just to clarify.

[Sheepshank]

207. FAIL...you fail fail fail fail fail in your assement.

but since you want so badly for manny to be there hero here, I understand why you are trying so hard.

your clarification fails.

[RobertEarl]

102. Man, Manny, they sure are after you

You really pissed them off again.

Cheers!!

[Uncle Joe]

103. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, MannyGoldstein.

[L0oniX]

110. K & R

[Vattel]

111. I agree with you, but there are two big obstacles to successful prosecution.

Last edited Tue Aug 5, 2014, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

One is that many DOJ lawyers and many judges (and, I suspect, Obama himself) have bought into bogus theories of executive power promulgated by idiots like John Yoo. (Some DUers defend those theories too.) On some of those theories the President's power to pursue national security as he or she sees fit is virtually unconstrained.

The second obstacle is that, partly because of the amendments to the War Crimes Act by the Military Commissions Act, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques are no longer unambiguously criminal under federal law. Torture is criminal under both the Torture Act and the War Crimes Act, but if you get into the details of these federal statutes you find that the definition of torture is really messed up. We desperately need to amend these statutes in order to strengthen them, but Obama settled for a mere executive order prohibiting some forms of torture instead of pushing for stronger criminal statutes against torture.

edited to add: By the way, the amendments to the war crimes act applied retroactively all the way back into the 1990's. That effectively covered the asses of the Bush torturers.

[cstanleytech]

120. Three big obstacles actually.

The third one which is getting a jury to convict them if it went to trial.
After all there are alot of people who are still full blown pro torture because they "arent americans" thus in their eyes its ok to torture them.

[Vattel]

125. True, that is another big obstacle.

[TheKentuckian]

123. People have been put to death for the same offenses, I grant zero wiggle room.

[Vattel]

127. Yes, people have been punished for torture, but it is doubtful that ordinary criminal laws against

kidnapping, assault, battery, etc. could be used to prosecute CIA torturers. Because the victims were detainees in war, ordinary criminal statutes don't apply. That is why the War Crimes Act and the Torture Act would be the most likely candidates to use in a federal prosecution. They clearly do apply even in the context of war. But no one has ever been prosecuted under either of those statutes. That makes the ambiguity in those statutes even more problematic because there are no precedents to use to resolve ambiguity in the text.

[msanthrope]

198. Yep...this. nt

[questionseverything]

237. if we need "clarification" that the following list is illegal

we are doomed

http://generalstrikeusa.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/30-kinds-of-approved-torture-used-by-the-c-i-a/

skinning people alive,beating,raping children in front of their parents to make them talk???

nothing yoo or anyone else has written can change human decency

[Vattel]

242. Those practices are clearly criminal. We don't need new legislation to

successfully prosecute them. I was thinking more of the standard harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, that the CIA admits to doing.

[valerief]

119. No, he's not a king. He's a CEO of a multinational. nt

[winter is coming]

122. ^^ Thread win. n/t

[TheProgressive]

126. Well said...

[moondust]

129. It's falling apart.

Too many caught up in too much corruption to risk doing the right thing for fear of being exposed themselves and losing their place on Easy Street.

[sibelian]

171. Totes.

If one falls, they all fall.

[blkmusclmachine]

145. TORTURE. It <<is>> a black or white issue. You're either FOR it, or AGAINST it. And silence=consent.

Against

[BrotherIvan]

163. AGAINST

And yes, this is one the few things that one can readily call very clear cut. Torture is EVIL.

[DeSwiss]

154. K&R

- I knew people would come around......





Some of us are just ahead of our times......

[JDPriestly]

179. K&R.

Congress needs to be more diligent in questioning proposed attorney generals. It should be not the prerogative of the president but rather or an independent prosecutor or attorney general with grand juries maybe to decide whether prosecutions for torture should be commenced.

[joshcryer]

184. Your understanding of civics is woefully lacking, as usual.

The President is duly elected, the only way to remove them from power is impeachment (or, forbid, some other thing which has happened only four times, but you should not even consider the thought; I only mention it for technicalities sake).

Other than that there is exactly zero recourse. This does not make the President a king, as much as you'd like to think. The President can be charged and convicted of crimes in which case impeachment is the way he is removed. A king has full immunity from all actions that he does (though modern kings cannot get away with such things).

[MannyGoldstein]

185. So Bush can't be charged for his role in torture.

That's interesting. Thanks for the info.

[joshcryer]

186. Yes he can and should be.

Which is why you should support HRC, as that is the most realistic route.

[heaven05]

187. we should have

screamed much louder when the king ascended the throne here in 2000, with help from Patricia Harris, SOS of Florida and SCOTUS, instead of screaming about the culpability of Obama because he didn't do the right thing. BULLSHIT!!!!! Obama could not do anything after the fact. If he had tried to put the cheney cabal on trial, aka Nuremburg or sent them to the Hague, the impeachments would still be going on. BULLSHIT!!!!!!! I have watched the Obama haters on here making a fool of themselves for the last six years, keep up the good work, you're true to form. He's had six years of obstruction by the RW racists and gun toting extremists and many on here has enabled that process. Disgusting and reprehensible is what I call it. By the way I have NOT agreed with every policy decision coming out of that house at 1600 and proud of it. Yet as POTUS Barack Obama has my hope of remaining a better than average President and I'm sure his legacy WILL BE a sight better than any other presidential legacy since Carter. A damn sight better than we've had since Carter. This administration has been fighting an uphill battle from literally INAUGURATION DAY 2008 and the RW backroom plans to derail him. Some people on here have long memories of what the real problems have been and some have pitifully short memories and selective fake outrage. All Pelosi and Reid have done is make the POTUS position look weak to the ravenous RW thugs that have been the racist scourge they have been for the last six years. Awww what's the use.....I'm dealing with.......

[humbled_opinion]

191. Then why

Is President Obama polling so low? Why do the people not feel the overall good effects of his policies? I agree that all of the Presidents ideas should be working but the facts simply do not show that the people agree with this direction. I agree that the Rightwing lunatics have obstructed him at all turns but the President did enjoy 2 years of a purely Democratic controlled house and Senate and 6 years of a Democratic controlled Senate. A President should be able to unite the people under their cause, short of that your post speaks like you wouldn't mind if President Obama were a king.

[heaven05]

197. if you think so

well that two year meme is not correct. Blue dogs obstructed a lot of that advantage. It's not like Obama has not tried to reach across the aisle, and all the RW has seen in that gesture is weakness. The only thing I wish about this POTUS is that he had better leadership in the Congress, Pelosi and Reid have been abysmal. You have totally disregarded the aspect of TOTAL RW rejection from day 1. Please you're not responding to someone who has lived in a vacuum for the last six years. I have not. The american people are notoriously fickle and these days dumbed down. I would bet those polls reflect RW and bluedog thinking and not the loyal base. You go have fun bashing and hating while disregarding the truth of why Barack Obama has has such a tough time. NO white President has ever faced this type of obstruction. Yes, a lot of this is about race in a notoriously racist CONGRESS, bluedogs included. Obfuscation is all I get from your response.

[humbled_opinion]

244. LOL Obfuscation...

I couldn't be more clear. President Obama was elected and re-elected with wide margins and has had many opportunities to actually govern. You can blame bluedogs, rightwingers, racists, homophobes, etc, none of them ever voted for him and none of them would ever support him no matter what he did but that number from a national standpoint is about 38 percent. The problem for Obama is that he has lost the middle, he is polling at 40 percent approval, 40 percent means that you have lost the country. The people will not follow someone whose policies are not working and who hasn't articulated a clear way forward. So keep putting your head in the sand and don't even try to use logic, because being a blindly led sycophant doesn't help anyone.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

195. Who are the fucking mouth-breathing assholes

that are saying such a thing?!!

[GoneFishin]

208. K & R

[Pholus]

209. Bushies "... owed Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thank-you notes."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation

[Zorra]

210. But royalty is soooo dreamy!!! Think of the pomp and circumstance,

the intrigue in the court, the wonderful coronations, those fabulous hats! And all those elite, *special* people, with titles and money, the who's who lifestyles of the rich and famous people of the planet, strutting their stuff in royal splendor.

And we wouldn't have to make decisions, because the King would do it all for us, and, knowing the king was always right, we wouldn't have to question anything!!!

Everything would be OK.

[closeupready]

216. Amen, Manny. K&R

[cheapdate]

219. My ideals are never sullied by practical considerations.

The air is crisp and pure here on the moral high-ground as I bask in the abstract glow of ideal, perfect justice.

The ugly smell of pragmatism occasionally drifts up from the valley below, but I shout down to them, "I demand perfect justice and damn the consequences!"

[Maedhros]

222. In the end, we'll all come to love Big Brother. [n/t]

[ReRe]

224. K&R

I don't want a king either, but it's beginning to look like we are electing them every 4 years. We elect them, they take that oath, and it all seems well, since nobody died. Then everything goes downhill. And we do it again and again, and again and wonder why things are the way they are. I think it's the major reason so few people vote. It all starts at the top, Manny. I honestly believe if we ever did get a REAL
president, one who demanded justice of himself and others, that the public would call him a King!

[Jefferson23]

228. Highly recommend. n/t

[bluesbassman]

230. Here's a little history on the subject...

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.

The previous month, a Spanish human rights group called the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had requested that Spain's National Court indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, "creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture." The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel. The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's "universal jurisdiction" law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents. Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria.
~snip~
The case eventually came to be overseen by another judge who last spring asked the parties behind the complaint to explain why the investigation should continue. Several human rights groups filed a brief urging this judge to keep the case alive, citing the Obama administration's failure to prosecute the Bush officials. Since then, there's been no action. The Obama administration essentially got what it wanted. The case of the Bush Six went away.

Back when it seemed that this case could become a major international issue, during an April 14, 2009, White House briefing, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs if the Obama administration would cooperate with any request from the Spaniards for information and documents related to the Bush Six. He said, "I don't want to get involved in hypotheticals." What he didn't disclose was that the Obama administration, working with Republicans, was actively pressuring the Spaniards to drop the investigation. Those efforts apparently paid off, and, as this WikiLeaks-released cable shows, Gonzales, Haynes, Feith, Bybee, Addington, and Yoo owed Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thank-you notes.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-obama-quashed-torture-investigation

[cwydro]

231. Good post

[nikto]

235. Conservatives will be no help

RWers' only beefs against Obama are of the level of Benghazi/birth certificate BS.

The Drone killings and torture are actual impeachable offenses.

Conservatives NEVER menton drones/torture
because they LIKE those policies, and also have no stomach for impeaching Dubya
retroactively along with Obama, which is what SHOULD happen for these offenses.


I just find Conservative silence on drones/torture/NSA
extremely galling in its hypocrisy (with all their talk of "impeaching" Obama ).

[Bill USA]

236. John Yoo, Dep Ass't AG, provided Bush, CIA & DoD legal cover, 4 "Enhanced Interrogation": 8/01/2002

They are known as the "Torture memos".

The Torture Memos, sometimes called the Bybee Memo or 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion, was a term originally applying to a set of three legal memoranda drafted by John Yoo as Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States and signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, head of the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice. They advised the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States Department of Defense, and the president on the use of enhanced interrogation techniques: mental and physical torment and coercion such as prolonged sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and waterboarding, and stated that such acts widely regarded as torture might be legally permissible under an expansive interpretation of presidential authority during the "War on Terror".

Following accounts of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq, one of the memos was leaked to the press in June 2004. Jack Goldsmith, then head of the Office of Legal Counsel, had already withdrawn the memos by Bybee and Yoo, and advised agencies not to rely on them. He resigned that month without completing replacement of the legal opinions. In December 2004, another head of OLC had reaffirmed the original legal opinions.

~~
~~

In addition to these memos issued by the OLC to executive agencies, internal memos were written related to the use of torture in interrogation of detainees; for instance, in 2002 and 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, signed several memos authorizing "Special Interrogation Plans" for specific detainees held at Guantanamo Bay in an attempt to gain more information from them.


All of these memoranda have been the focus of considerable controversy over executive power, government practices, and the treatment of detainees during the Bush administration. [font size="4"]They were repudiated by President Barack Obama on January 22, 2009, shortly after he took office.[/font]

If you are thinking of going after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or others from Bush Administration I think they've got their legal cover in place and it looks pretty tight.