BREAKING NEWS: Obama leaves door to open to prosecutions over Bush-era interrogations

[YDogg]

Source: MSNBC.com

BREAKING NEWS: Obama leaves door to open to prosecutions over Bush-era interrogations



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

---

Headline on the website ... more to follow.

[subsuelo]

1. Woww! That's great

[No Elephants]

43. Did you read the story and actually think about it? Please

do. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495 / And please see Post # 36.

[bjobotts]

159. This has nothing to do with Obama.The AG works for us not the WH

[bjobotts]

160. Obama doesn't get to say who gets prosecuted.DoJ is apolitical.It carries out the law

[bjobotts]

161. DoJ does not take orders from the WH. It's not up to Obama.That would be illegal

[bjobotts]

172. BREAKING NEWS: Eric Holder is leaving the door open not Obama.

[Reterr]

185. Stop replying to yourself man-its fucking weird.eom

[shagsak]

209. He does that to boost his post count

I've encountered that guy before, he's a douch and subsequently on my ignore list (the list is short)

[DS1]

2. NOOO! This can't be! I need to bash Obama at the drop of a hat

and NOW he's RUINING EVERYTHING!

[lostnotforgotten]

200. Obama Copped Out - DOJ Is Keeping Hope Alive

eom

[Beetwasher]

3. Yup, Obama's Playing This Right

Drip drip drip.

He needs to keep his hands out of it though and let Congress and DOJ do their job w/ MUCH PRESSURE FROM US THE GRASSROOTS!!!

But Obama NEEDS to stay above the fray and take a hands off approach so it is NOT politicized.

[YDogg]

5. agreed

[justaregularperson]

151. Actually he is responding to pressure. Not that it is bad to do so.

Phones have been lighting up. I was one of them. Without pressure he would feel like there will be no back up and only the opposition.

[bjobotts]

163. He's responding to his duty to stay out of it. Learn how government works

[bjobotts]

164. The DoJ would be "politicized" if Obama says who they could prosecute.

[justaregularperson]

175. Get off your high horse

There was no call for that.

I called my Representatives. I don't expect Obama to advocate. But he is a key figure and he could cause a lot of difficulty by getting in the way or keeping his DOJ from doing their work (or clinging to abusive power like with the wire tapping). It is good to see him respond. What is innapropriate about a President responding to public concerns?

Welcome as you are only the third to make my ignore list. I am not interested in reading about your feelings of superiority. I don't need to "learn" civics from you, thank you.

[NoSheep]

183. Nope. He has allowed the public to see the truth; the only way he could hope to take

this position. Also, a case has to be made. It takes time; AND we have a country in financial ruin.

[NoSheep]

184. self delete dupe

[thevoiceofreason]

9. And keep the CIA friendly

[Beetwasher]

10. Yup, Notice How Obama Came Out And Thanked The CIA

for their service and promised to keep their identities secret and keep them safe?

It's all part of the same thing.

He's firming up his support there while letting the info needed to prosecute dribble out.

He knows what he's doing.

[Baby Snooks]

24. Keep the CIA friendly?

Why does he need to keep the CIA friendly?

[havocmom]

33. Many leaders have been taken down by their own guards.

History is a valuable resource.

[alfredo]

80. Obama's move will make the CIA more willing to cooperate with prosecutors.

[BelgianMadCow]

88. that's an optimistic thought

I also had. If you really WANT to catch any of the cabal you need everybody in the chain pointing back up.

[alfredo]

97. That's an old police method. Turn the underlings.

[BelgianMadCow]

102. last time I had that sentiment / hope was with Fitzgerald

and even if he couldn't go all the way he did deliver imho.

The TARP cop thing http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3841557 also gives hope. I don't know if a Special Inspector General has enough power.

Is Scooter in prison yet? Or pardoned? How's the civil trial going? I should know and I don't.

[alfredo]

115. Scooter was a good soldier for the junta, so he got his stint in prison

commuted. I don't know of any other actions against him.

What has changed for the junta is they don't have the protections that come with the office.

I'm sure there are more than a couple CIA agents that still harbor hard feelings about the outing of Plame and her front company.

[Odin2005]

143. Yup. don't piss off the Praetorian Guard.

Just subvert them.

[RollWithIt]

141. Because the CIA simply follows the rules set forth by the Executive Branch...

And if the Executive breaks the law, they are the ones responsible. Not some guy just following what he's told to do. You open the door to prosecution of the big guys, and cut off the little ones.

[shellgame26]

162. "why does he need to keep the CIA friendly"?

R E M E M B E R J F K

[zipplewrath]

16. That's been the most confusing

I would have presumed a more hands off approach. But instead, he's chosen to be out ahead of the DOJ. Much of the pain this weekend was from his Chief of Staff's comments on Sunday. Which appeared to be re-enforced on Monday by Obama himself at the CIA. He seems to be narrowing who can and will be prosecuted. That's what's confusing. He's getting out ahead and making statements which seem to exonerate just about everyone. Only recently have we seen back pedaling on the authors of the memos. But they should merely be the first of many folks. Ultimately, many of the folks that actually conducted the torture basically asked to do it. They weren't "following orders", they were seeking permission/cover. He has wiggle room, but he only has to wiggle because he's talking at all. One would expect him to leave this to DOJ officially, or at least withold comment.

[Beetwasher]

21. No, He's Not Exonerating Everyone, You Have To Carefully Parse His Statements

It's politics.

He cannot freak out the CIA, so he has to be careful w/ what he says and make sure they do not feel threatened. The career people at CIA need to know he's not coming after them so they will 1. cooperate and 2. continue to faithfully carry out their duties and work w/ him on ongoing.

He has said he will not prosecute the agents who "acted in good faith". That leaves a lot of wiggle room.

[No Elephants]

50. Zipplewrath did not say everyone and s/he did parse Obama's statements very well, IMO. Do you

have any idea how hard it is going to be to prove that a CIA agent did NOT act in good faith when there were legal opinions saying it was ok?

Question: Mr. CIA interrogator. Were you acting in good faith reliance on the legal opinions or did you know in your gut that the legal opinions were bullshit? Bear in mind, that if you say that you did know that, we will prosecute you. However, if you do not admit to it, we have no way of proving otherwise and therefore will not be able to prosecute you.

Now, are you a sadistic rogue agent who was scared out of your conscience and lawfulness by 911, or did you simply act in good faith reliance on the legal opinions of very well credentialed lawyers like Yoo and Gonzalez?

[Beetwasher]

54. If They Tortured BEFORE Legal Cover

They did NOT act in good faith. If they went BEYOND what was outlined in the memos they did NOT act in good faith.

Not hard. Not hard at all.

But keep up your bashing. You are exposing yourself for what you really are.

[No Elephants]

92. As are you. And I am fine with that. BTw, a person can act in a good faith

belief that their actions are authorized, even without a legal opinion. And, as I have already posted, proving absence of good faith beyond a reasonable doubt is quite difficult.

[Beetwasher]

98. No, It's Not Difficult, As I've Posted, If They Tortured BEFORE The Memos

or went beyond what was in them, they are still on the hook. That's NOT hard to prove w/ access to the appropriate evidence.

[Igel]

81. Interesting.

So you're saying he's leaving room to prosecute those who did nothing except write a legal memo--not even giving the order; or those who gave the order to use these methods.

But those who were just following orders and didn't think they were wrong are off the hook. What, pre-emptive application of the nuremburg defense by the prosecution? For purely political purposes, of course.

[Beetwasher]

86. So You Have A Problem W/ Investigations?

To determine who did what and then deciding who should be prosecuted? Maybe we should just hang everyone you think is guilty w/ out investigations and trials!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

42. I agree

What Rahm Emmanuel said on ABC on Sunday made it seem like the case was closed to prosecution. But now it's not? I will concur that Obama is much smarter than I am so maybe he knows what he is doing. But it certainly is confusing.

[No Elephants]

51. Trust your gut. Maybe you are confused because that is exactly what Obama wants you to be.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

55. Maybe so. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. "Trust your gut."

Truthy.

[disndat]

139. Absolutely!

Obama seems to have a strategy. Also the previous DU poster was right. Pbama probably need the full cooperation of the C.I.A. The reason why he put Panetta in charge of the Agency.

[No Elephants]

46. You're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say he is playing it right.

On the other hand, you say that he needs to stay out it and let Congress and the D of J do their job. That is not what he is doing. Please read the story Post # 36 and the entire MSNBC story, not just the headline. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

111. If Obama takes focus off of the economy then the public will be pissed....

that doesn't mean the torture memos should just 'go away'. Let someone else handle that mess. All Obama needs to do is sign any bills passed that says "GET THESE FUCKERS"

[louis-t]

112. Agree wholeheartedly.

He's playing it perfectly. A constitutional scholar as president? Hmmmm.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

119. EXACTEMENTE!

[monmouth]

4. You had to know he wasn't going to persue this himself. That's why

the memos were released and why we're seeing so much of the National Dick on the TV. Obama is leaving doors open so others may enter. Again chess vs. checkers!

[No Elephants]

60. So, why is he trying to limit this to lawyers and those who acted in bad faith, when

proving bad faith under these circumstances is going to be almost impossible? And why is he trying to caution Congress against investigating "too intensely?" And insisting that the investigation be "bipartisan?" How much do you think Republicans in Congress want this investigation? Why is Obama giving them ammunition?

[EFerrari]

108. "Good faith" is a red herring. It has nothing to do with it.

And remember, they had no legal cover for months before those memos were produced. The production of the memos themselves may also be a crime -- there's a report in te works about that.

Obama is going to try to protect himself. He has to and, imo, he's right to do that even if I disagree with him at every point in this process.

[RDANGELO]

6. Probably meaning the people who gave the legal opinions and

the orders.

[Beetwasher]

8. And The Torturers

Who tortured BEFORE the legal opinions and/or went beyond what was outlined in them and/or didn't act in "good faith".

There will be plenty of people who can/should/will hopefully be prosecuted. There's lot's of wiggle room in what's been said by the admin. on the matter.

[No Elephants]

62. Did Obama mention prosecuting the people who gave the orders?

[bjobotts]

165. It's not his job to say who gets prosecuted though he can give an opinion.

[bjobotts]

166. The Attorney General does not work for the president.The AG carries out the law...

[bjobotts]

167. The AG does not "make' the law, nor does the president.. Congress does.

[tomp]

177. apparently it's his job to say who doesn't get prosecuted, though. nt

[Igel]

83. Personally, I'd like to know

the legal basis for prosecuting Yoo. If you give bad legal advice and I follow it, you've committed malpractice and can be disbarred. But if I don't follow it, can you still be disbarred?

And is this something that goes through the federal courts? Does it matter if you believed it was based on sound reasoning?

[No Elephants]

89. Very astute question! If a lawyer gives advice for which he has no basis,

he has indeed committed malpractice, whether anyone follows his advice or not, whether anyone pursues the matter or not. However, if no one followed his advice, no one was damaged by it, so no one is likely to sue the lawyer for malpractice. The person who received the bad advice could complain, though, to the state board of bar overseers or, I guess, to a court where the lawyer is admitted to practice.

Lawyers can be disbarred for malpractice, but only by the state or courts that admitted him to the bar in the first place. Neither the D of J nor Congress can disbar him for malpractice. Not under current law and practice, anyway. If you remember, Arkansas disbarred Clinton, not Congress. (He is reinstated now, though, btw.)


We are talking about possible criminal prosecution, though, not a civil malpractice case or a complaint to the state "licensing" board.

To get a convinction for any crime, the government has to prove all elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt and intent is an element of every criminal case. Sometimes, though, recklessness can fulfill the requirement of intent.

You may be able to prove that A waterboarded B with the intent of waterboarding B and then prove that waterboarding is torture.

What you would have to prove to convict a lawyer of a crime is something else again. Malpractice may be a reason to award monetary damages in a civil case to someone injured by the malpractice. It may also be a reason to disbar the attorney. However, as far as I know, making a mistake in giving a legal opinion, in and of itself--meaning no theft of funds from a client or other extenuating circumstance, is not a crime for which the attorney goes to jail. I certainly could be wrong, but I have never heard of a lawyer going to jail for erring when giving a legal opinion.

Even at Nuremberg, I don't know of lawyers who got convicted, though I believe judges may have.

Lawyers give advice and opinions. They don't decide what the client actually does. The client does that. And the client of these lawyers told us again and again that he was the decider.

On edit. Okay. I just did some research, which I should have done in the first place. Here's an article that says lawyers have been convicted, but I have not yet read enough to know if they were convicted simply for issuing incorrect opinions. http://www.slate.com/id/2206518/

[Usrename]

131. This is a conspiracy case, it has very little to do with legal opinions.

Other than the fact that these particular legal opinions are supposed to carry the force of law, they are irrelevant.

They were nothing but a tool that was used in a conspiracy to commit war crimes.

According to the Nuremberg Principles, the act of complicity is its own war crime. These lawyer guys were all complicit.





Principle I

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



Principle VII

Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

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

[tomp]

178. but with whom were they conspiring?

i believe the conpiracy is not just between the doj and the white house, but also between both and the cia, the ones obama has decided to tell everyone are off the hook.

[Egnever]

7. Not possible

He loves torture!

I read it on DU I know its true!

[tridim]

12. And his supporters love torture too!

:eyes:

Ironically it's the bashers and the "I'm smarter than Obama" people who are torturing themselves daily.

[Egnever]

22. I have been dreaming of being able to torture for years!

Thats why I first supported obama!

You would think as many times as these people have come out looking foolish they would have learned to have a little faith in the guy by now.

[natrat]

137. no obama is smart- the bots are a little dim

[No Elephants]

53. Really? You should be able to link to that post then. Are you able to link to it?

[Egnever]

66. Sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVGtbV5Qc74

[No Elephants]

73. You Tube is showing a post that you read on DU? Huh. Imagine that.

[flvegan]

11. So potentially it's up to the DOJ and/or Congress to act?

Good volley, Obama. Put it in their lap, but don't let them drop it.

[seemslikeadream]

13. Separation of powers Obama actually had NO say in this

He can not tell the Juctice Dept what to do and what not to do

[Beetwasher]

14. Yup, People Are Finally Starting To Get It, I've Been Saying It For Weeks

Obama is playing this right. He needs to stay above the fray and let the legal process work it out.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. I made it my tagline because a lot of people aren't getting that fact.

[seemslikeadream]

31. The Justice Department HAS to be separate from the White House

:hi:

[No Elephants]

95. There are good reasons for appointing a special prosecutor. It's why Janet Reno

was not the one to investigate Clinton. There is theory and the ideal and then there is reality. Asking someone to buck or investigate the person who controls his or her job/paycheck/recommendatons is asking an awful lot of most humans.

[Baby Snooks]

28. No but his Attorney General can...

This is just more rhetoric meant to appease the masses who simply do not matter. The people do not matter. If they did Bush would be at the Hague at this moment. A president impeached, convicted, removed from office and turned over to the Hague. It was all off the table. Still is.

[seemslikeadream]

30. and Holder has no authority in the world court

[havocmom]

34. Separation of powers is back in style!

We may save the nation yet.

[stubtoe]

47. Isn't THAT good news! n/t

[lostnotforgotten]

201. Bully Pulpit - No Discussion Is A Cop Out On And An Excuse For Obama

He sure exhorts us to hope but says nothing about morality.

That behavior strains credulity.

[DURHAM D]

15. That article/video was just too long to wade through.

:sarcasm:

Do you think Obama has told Rahm yet? Rahm was known as one of two major "leakers" in the Clinton W.H. but his biggest problem - Rahm runs his own agenda, not the W.H. agenda.

[seemslikeadream]

18. I don't think Rahm runs the Justice Dept either

[Amonester]

17. I'll believe it when I'll see it.

In the meantime, keep writing:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Maybe Someone's Reading Afterall

[lostnotforgotten]

202. Very Skeptical Here As Well

eom

[Soylent Brice]

19. Soylent Brice is *staying tuned* for further details...

...enthusiastically beyond belief.

finally, some decent fucking news.

[annabanana]

23. I can breathe again.... . .n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

25. Now THAT'S Change I can believe in!

[SkyDaddy7]

26. It has been open the whole time!!

I know many will pounce on me for trusting Obama but I am guilty as charged...I voted for the man because I trust him.

Obama does not and should not be the one who begins the long drawn out investigation that will be needed to get to the bottom of what happened and who is guilty of what...Obama has pressing problems that mean more to the everyday lives of Americans like health care. There are plenty other bodies that have the power of investigation! Obama has already done his part by releasing the memos. He said he would not pursue prosecution but he NEVER said he would not allow prosecution, BIG DIFFERENCE. IMHO.

A true investigation has to be done by an independent board and prosecutor...Plus, there is much more evidence coming that we don't even know about and I know Obama does. We only know some of every issue he must deal with. So, PLEASE question ever action any of our leaders do but I am choosing to not let my anger override my common sense. Thats just me so please don't rough me up.

[SeeHopeWin]

39. AMEN!

[havocmom]

41. agree. Just because one figures there is more going on than what is reported

does not mean one is giving Obama Administration a pass. Some recognize that things are done in stages if they are done well. The President needs to lead and address the critical issues that affect the most people first. Triage. He has whole departments of government to address the issues which must be carefully dissected so that the evidence survives and THEN legal actions can happen.

The very thing so many hated about bush malAdministration, the blurring of boundaries between agencies, and the supremacy of political considerations over all else, is what too many have wanted from this current administration. We would do well to consider that doing things well often means not doing them in haste. And there are things the President shouldn't be doing himself.

:banghead:

[Zhade]

84. Well, I'll believe it when I see it.

But good points on how b*s* was ultimately successful in making us *expect* those boundaries to not be enforced.

[condoleeza]

64. My thoughts on this exactly - well stated

people should never underestimate just how smart our President is. The signs have all been there since the day he took office that he was moving towards prosecution.

[YDogg]

27. MSNBC is now linking to a video with David Schuster reporting on the story ...

[derby378]

29. Video link: Obama "leaving the door open"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30326994#30326994

[Lone_Star_Dem]

32. Link to MSNBC story:

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama is leaving the door open to possible prosecution of Bush administration officials who devised harsh terrorism-era interrogation tactics.

He also said Tuesday that he worries about the impact of high-intensity hearings on how detainees were treated under former President George W. Bush.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

But Obama did say, nevertheless, he could support a congressional investigation if it were conducted in a bipartisan way.

Obama has said he does not support charging CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, acting on advice from superiors that such practices were legal. But he also said that it is up to the attorney general whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote the memos approving these tactics.

More... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30325495/

[YDogg]

37. thanks for the link

[mvd]

35. K&R

I wish he would have just said so to begin with, rather than have people like Emanuel hint that he was moving on. How could we disbelieve his chief of staff?

[No Elephants]

36. Sorry, this is DISGUSTING.. Congress has indicated a desire to investigate. Obama CANNOT prevent

Congress from doing that, but he sure is trying to make sure Congress does not investigate "intensely." And, he is trying to limit Congress to the lawyers.

Much as I disapprove of what the lawyers did, what the hell about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, etc. They were the ones who told the lawyers what they wanted those legal opinions to say.

And what about the "interrogators' who knew in their guts and minds that what they were doing was unlawful? Just because Obama wants to honor the Nuremberg defense, that does not mean Congress must.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[annabanana]

59. Isn't it smarter for him to let Congress take the lead?

All he has to do is not obstruct the wheels of justice.

[No Elephants]

70. It is not up to him to "let" Congress or to forbid Congress. Congress can do what it wants. How-

ever, he is the leader of the Party to which a majority of Congress belongs, so what he says can influence Congress--or why say it? Is he standing by silently? No. He's making comments about how Congress should handle this. Do his comments serve to cheerlead Congress, or are his comments attempting to circumscribe Congress's investigation?

Make your own decision, but please try to read between the lines of what he is saying.

Bear in mind as well, that he has probably had tons of negative reaction to his prior comments about not prosecuting and to Rahm's comments Sunday. And not from Republicans, either. So he makes this statement.

[caseymoz]

174. Actually, Congress can investigate it, but AG appoints the prosecutor.

Both are supposed to be making decision independent of the President-- the AG should be making decisions on legal not political grounds. At least that was the way it should work before the Republicans overwrote the rules. The most important thing he said here was that he would not interfere with the AG investigating it. That means, I hope, that Holder is free to investigate and prosecute, which is the way it should be. That is encouraging. Why he was saying the very opposite of what Rahm and Gibbs said, I don't know. Then there was his visit to the CIA, after the release of those damaging torture memos.

What the hell is going on? I don't know. It is a dance of some sort, but I don't recognize the step or the song.

Whatever Obama is telling Congressional Democrats, he wouldn't be telling them via the press. The only thing his mentioning this does is establish his position to the public, meant to keep him above the fray.

[No Elephants]

198. My post spoke exclusive to Congressional investigations, though. BTW, I don't

think he has changed his posibiton very much at all.

His position seems to be limit action, if any, to a few lawyers and those who tortured in "bad faith."

In so saying, he has created, for the first time I know of since Nuremberg, a category of "good faith torture." Once you create that, I don't see how you convict anyone.

I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that torture occurred. I can prove that the torturers tortured intentionally--that is to say that, for example, they did not waterboard accidentally.

Without the good faith/bad faith distinction, that is all I would have to prove to get a conviction for torturing. However, I doubt that I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone who tortured did so in bad faith vs. good faith. That's the Nuremberg Defense. It did not work then, but, apparently, Obama would like it to work now.

I disagree that Obama would not speak to Congress via the press. Presidents have done that for years, if not centuries. The idea is to get your side of things before both the media and the public before Congress does anything. You frame and define the issue that way, as well as giving the people who agree with your position additional ammo to use against Congress. (Framing the matter for the media and the public before anyone else has a chance to do so is NO small thing.)

Regardles, when a President does speak to the media about what Congress is doing or about to do, Congress knows what he has said to the people who vote them in and out of office.

[caseymoz]

231. The statute gives no separation of good and bad faith.

Neither does the treaty. No matter what he prefers, the only ways Obama can get around that is through 1) breaking the law; 2) Pardoning the ones who tortured "in good faith." Now, Presidents have broken the law, that's what this discussion is about, but it's too early to tell if Obama will do that. He doesn't dare pardon them, before their trial, at least.

Why the confusing messages from his administration? I mean, the release of the memos, the Obama chumming up to the CIA telling them nobody there will be prosecuted, Rahm stating there will be no trials, Obama saying that there might be . . . If I could conjecture: Obama knows Holder will prosecute, but he wants to be as far away from it as he can. He wants his administration to look like it is deeply divided and confused on the issue.

So, I expect indictments to start coming down, while Obama looks like he is uneasy about it. He won't fire Holder, though.

I'll conjecture something else: that if an investigation in Congress isn't done carefully, Repubs in Congress are likely to boycott and deny Congress a quorum. Maybe the Dems in Congress, and Obama, have been given warning about this.

[SeeHopeWin]

38. To all the Obama bashers:

[No Elephants]

40. Please step away from the Kool Aid.

[Demit]

67. And you should take a deep breath and wait & see how things unfold.

You seem to be angry that Obama hasn't laid out his game plan for you all at once. If you were sailing a boat, I bet you'd be the kind to head your boat straight for the shore regardless of what the winds were. Smart sailors tack.

[No Elephants]

72. How long do we wait? BTW, why do you think Obama is saying this now? Do you think he is saying i

because of all the Republicans who've been approving of his comments about not prosecuting? Or is he saying it because of so many Democrats have been criticizing him for those comments?

Waiting is not effective.

As far as what kind of sailor you imagine I will be, excuse me if I don't reply to personal stuff that you pull straight out of your ear.

[Demit]

129. I was using what is known as a 'metaphor.'

Tacking with the wind means you can't always get where you want to go in a straight line. You work with the elements and you eventually get there.

[Skittles]

156. you know it, N E

damn straight

[primavera]

94. So you're actually advocating for public disengagement from the policy process?

And you're a Democrat? "Shut up, don't ask questions, and do as you're told" is the slogan of the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party.

[Cetacea]

104. Ahh. I was just looking for that. Thanks!

:hi:

[TankLV]

44. On CNN now too - GOOD FOR OBAMA!!!

He LISTENS to ALL of us!!!

better get some POPCORN for all the TORTURE APOLOGISTS/SUPPORTERS...

I, for one, am LOOKING FORWARD to WAR CRIMES TRIALS!!!

I agree, we gotta LOOK FORWARD to PROSECUTING and PUNISHING these sick TORTURERS...!

[Ganja Ninja]

45. Any prosecution of the Bush cabal is going to take some time.

Obama has to make it look like he's not too eager to prosecute.

[cindyfaulkner]

49. Hot damn

is all I have to say.

[cosmicone]

56. Can't wait to see Cheney in handcuffs n/t

[No Elephants]

65. That is not what Obama said.

[Egnever]

69. But it will be the end result.

[No Elephants]

74. Crystal ball? Or are you one of the double secret, double backwards sideways plan folk?

[Egnever]

78. Back at ya

you seem to think it wont happen is it your crystall ball telling you so?

[No Elephants]

85. "Seem to think?" Now you are a mind reader, too? I never made a flat statement that it

will never happen. So, you have no supportable reason to ask if I have a crystal ball You, however, made a flat statement that it will happen. Hence my question to you.

Posting as though you can predict the future and read the minds of other posters may be a way to make yourself feel as though you've "won" something, I guess. I prefer to stick with the topic, though.

[Arrowhead2k1]

57. Today, someone in the Bush clan shat their pants.

:D

[No Elephants]

75. If they did, it was because of Congress.

[grahamhgreen]

58. Yeah! (but let's keep the pressure on)

[Snazzy]

61. AP: Obama open to some interrogation prosecution

Apr 21, 1:25 PM EDT

Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations

By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

...


Obama said an investigation might be acceptable "outside of the typical hearing process" and with the participation of "independent participants who are above reproach." This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.

"That would probably be a more sensible approach to take," Obama said. "I'm not saying that it should be done, I'm saying that if you've got a choice."

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_INTERROGATION_MEMOS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-04-21-13-25-21

[Snazzy]

63. Transcript, Obama full remarks:

Q ... I want to ask you about the interrogation memos that you released last week; two questions. You were clear about not wanting to prosecute those who carried out the instructions under this legal advice. Can you be that clear about those who devised the policy? And then quickly on a second matter, how do you feel about investigations, whether special -- a special commission or something of that nature on the Hill to go back and really look at the issue?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- look, as I said before, this has been a difficult chapter in our history, and one of the tougher decisions that I've had to make as President. On the one hand, we have very real enemies out there. And we rely on some very courageous people, not just in our military but also in the Central Intelligence Agency, to help protect the American people. And they have to make some very difficult decisions because, as I mentioned yesterday, they are confronted with an enemy that doesn't have scruples, that isn't constrained by constitutions, aren't constrained by legal niceties.

Having said that, the OLC memos that were released reflected, in my view, us losing our moral bearings. That's why I've discontinued those enhanced interrogation programs.

For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted.

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

As a general deal, I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards. I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively, and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.

And so if and when there needs to be a further accounting of what took place during this period, I think for Congress to examine ways that it can be done in a bipartisan fashion, outside of the typical hearing process that can sometimes break down and break it entirely along party lines, to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.

I'm not suggesting that that should be done, but I'm saying, if you've got a choice, I think it's very important for the American people to feel as if this is not being dealt with to provide one side or another political advantage but rather is being done in order to learn some lessons so that we move forward in an effective way.

And the last point I just want to emphasize, as I said yesterday at the CIA when I visited, what makes America special in my view is not just our wealth and the dynamism of our economy and our extraordinary history and diversity. It's that we are willing to uphold our ideals even when they're hard. And sometimes we make mistakes because that's the nature of human enterprise. But when we do make mistakes, then we are willing to go back and correct those mistakes and keep our eye on those ideals and values that have been passed on generation to generation.

And that is what has to continue to guide us as we move forward. And I'm confident that we will be able to move forward, protect the American people effectively, and live up to our values and ideals. And that's not a matter of being naive about how dangerous this world is. As I said yesterday to some of the CIA officials that I met with, I wake up every day thinking about how to keep the American people safe. And I go to bed every night worrying about keeping the American people safe.

I've got a lot of other things on my plate. I've got a big banking crisis, and I've got unemployment numbers that are very high, and we've got an auto industry that needs work. There are a whole things -- range of things that during the day occupy me, but the thing that I consider my most profound obligation is keeping the American people safe.

So I do not take these things lightly, and I am not in any way under illusion about how difficult the task is for those people who are on the front lines every day protecting the American people.

So I wanted to communicate a message yesterday to all those who overwhelmingly do so in a lawful, dedicated fashion that I have their back.

All right? Thank you, everybody.

END 11:44 A.M. EDT


http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/04/obama_and_king_abdullah_of_jor.html

[No Elephants]

76. First, let's kill all the lawyers, Henry VI

[LynneSin]

116. My 2 cents about going after the policy makers and not those who carried out the law

I know it pisses many of us off, even myself, that those who practiced torture (the ones that actually did it) are going to get away with it. But I think Obama is playing it smart.

First, these are the people we need to help testify about what they were ordered to do and where that authority came from. Yes, they were doing the job asked of them and even though it was a horrible thing they did - they were doing their job. Knowing that they can testify without punishment might get them to open up even more and make this case explode wide open. And Second (and even more importantly), Obama can't go pissing off the entire CIA. We need the CIA to be doing their job to help protect the country. Hopefully the fact that Torture is no longer a viable option, these agents are no longer doing it. But we still need our agents out there doing what they do except doing it without torture. Go after the ones that said this was ok - we can torture if they want. These are the policy-makers NOT the 'little-people'. And there are some big names on that list that could go up as high as Bush.

I don't think any of us would be happy if just a few ground-level agents were sent to jail on this issue. We need the big guns behind bars.

Obama sent a clear message of who the target it and it's one I support 100%

[jeff30997]

125. I totally agree.

You get the small fishes to squeal then you go up the food-chain.That's how organized crime must be

dealt with.

[LynneSin]

130. I would also like to add that any who practices torture TODAY should be punished

We've put an end to it. Anyone who is still practicing should be held accountable AND anyone having difficulty giving up this practice should be offered counselling (meaning they haven't done it anymore but really want too - this torture stuff is psychological. Once you start it's tough to turn that off)

[jeff30997]

146. What you're saying reminds me of The Stanford prison experiment .

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Those selected were chosen for their lack of psychological issues, crime history, and medical disabilities, in order to obtain a representative sample. Roles were assigned based on a coin toss.<1>

Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations.One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies,while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early. After being confronted by Christina Maslach, a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating,<2> and realizing that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his direct supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become too grossly absorbed in their roles and terminated the experiment after six days.<3>

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

That's pretty frightening to think that we all have the potential to become monsters.

Good site with links:

http://www.prisonexp.org/links.htm#iraq

[Snazzy]

134. I agree for the most part

though question the lack of flexibility that blanket statements of immunity provide, and glad there is room for backing off some of the statements made by Rahm, Axelrod, and even Obama himself.

And we already know who the ultimate big fish are. Stinking from the head down, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and everyone else on the NSC principals list. See, it's not even the lawyers, it's their bosses, and our ultimate leaders who did this evil stuff (in our names).

Will anyone even officially condemn them in words, much less actually prosecute? We are very far away from dealing with this in any reasonable fashion. Torture is too heavy a weight of moral repugnance and an antithesis of historic American values for notions of "looking forward" to not become completely derailed.

[tomp]

179. the cia is perhaps the most corrupt institution in the history of mankind.

and you think they're "defending the country". my, that's quaint!

[LynneSin]

207. Some of them actually do

Maybe one day we can make a difference.

There is some good with the CIA, unfortunately some bad people have been in control and has given them a black eye.

[No Elephants]

191. I did not see Obama even hinting that he wanted to go after policy makers, which would lead right up

to Cheney and "The Decider." All I see him talking about prosecuting is lawyers and those who tortured in bad faith. And I don't see criminal convictions coming out of either of those categories. (As if there were such a thing as torturing in good faith.)

[LynneSin]

206. It's a house of cards

Right now we have the goods. I can see those lawyers squealing when they realize their ass is on the line.

We don't have the kingpins yet (Bush & Cheney) but we're going after people who are closely connected to them. Going after the ground people who did torture is like trying to bring down a drug kingpin by arresting the guy on the street-corner selling dime bags.

[DebbieCDC]

68. I'll believe when I see it

I'm not going to rush into premature praise on this topic. Show me the investigations and prosecutions first, then you'll get my thanks.

[No Elephants]

91. I'll wait for the convictions. I've seen too many Congressional investigations and Ted Stevens, for

just one example, is a free man today.

[Wizard777]

71. Ultimately the legality of these issues MUST be decided by the Judiciary.

Not the Executive and Congress. The longer this stays out of court. The more room their is for people on both sides to cry politicization. They will be right. Get this to court and get it there quick. Swift Justice is the way. It's really that simple.

[No Elephants]

77. Yes, but, in order to get the matter before an American judge, someone has to prosecute. So, no

prosecution, no judicial decision. And it looks as though the Nuremberg defense has already won the day. At least, if Obama gets his way, it has.

[alfredo]

79. Either we prosecute or Spain and other countries will. Who would you

want to do the deed? I'd rather they were subject to the laws of this land.

[Vidar]

90. Given our record, I'd rather go with an unknown like Spain.

[alfredo]

96. Spain doesn't have the death penalty, so maybe they'd fare better there.

[GeorgeGist]

82. You mean he finally realized ...

he never had the right to close the door.

[No Elephants]

93. I think Congress realized it. Congressional investigations don't seem to end in very many

convictions, though. Watergate was the most effective one I can recall, and even that did not end in a conviction.

[Fire1]

103. 'He' never closed the door. His chief of staff and press

secretary 'over spoke' (didn't know what the fuck they were talking about.)

[Bluenorthwest]

124. An assumption on your part

It seemed like trial balloons to me. That proved to be leaden. If a chief of staff will speak when he 'doen't know what the fuck' that person needs to be replaced. Period.

[Fire1]

127. I'll take 'needs to be replaced' for a thousand.

[Fire1]

128. The mere fact they were both contradicted today by the

President means it was not an 'assumption.'

[No Elephants]

192. Not really. It could be that Rahm said exactly what his boss wanted him to say, but there has been

so much adverse reaction from voters and organizations that Obama backpedalled somewhat from Rahm's statement somewhat today.

That is one of the major functions of the chief of staff, to be a lightening rod for criticism so that as little as possible falls on the President.

No one can know for sure whether Rahm spoke out of school or not.

Fact is, though, these people work for Obama. Technically, for the American people, yes. But I did not hire Rahm, nor can I send him packing from the White House in disgrace. Obama can. They spend most days working together. I don't think Rahm goes rogue just because he gets on TV. Quite the opposite.

When Rahm is on national TV, he is there as a representative of the adminstration and strictly because he is a representative of the administration. He is not there because he is newsworthy in his own right. He's there because he is Chief of Staff for Obama.

I find it telling that, whenever someone who works for Obama does something people here approve of, they cheer Obama. I do that as well, because he hired them and they answer to him. However, when someone who works for Obama does something not so appealing, some of those same people assume that Obama disagrees with it. I don't.

[Fire1]

210. Much speculation can arise as a result of 'mixed messages.'

http://www.cjr.org/full_court_press/above_the_fold_tortured_memos.php

If the COS has daily briefings with the president, it would seem to me Emmanuel's appearance Sunday would have been a main topic in those briefings. Nevertheless, the article in the above link certainly makes Rahm and Gibbs appear less than credible in speaking on this particular topic b/c as the article indicates, Obama never closed the door on ALL prosecutions.

[No Elephants]

197. Bingo.

[humbled_opinion]

99. I think Our President

Just told Cheney to Shut his Pie-hole.... LOL....

[Phoonzang]

100. So he's leaving the door open to prosecuting the people who ordered torture instead of

the peons who did the torturing. Fine with me.

[bjobotts]

170. Obama has nothing to do with it.It's not his call."Holder" is leaving the door open

[bjobotts]

171. Holder is holding the door open. What an appropriate name.Obama thought you knew this

[McCamy Taylor]

101. It has always been Eric Holder's call. Let's hope our new Attorney General loves the law.

[No Elephants]

196. He may love the law, but he may not be eager to attempt to enforce it over

the objections of someone who can send him to the unemployment lines. For that matter, he may agree with Obama. Lets's leave alone those who tortured in "good faith" and go after only two or three lawyers and those we can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt tortured in bad faith.

[Optical.Catalyst]

105. Kicked and Recommended

[defendandprotect]

106. Congratulations, Obama . . . if this is true!!!

So ----- let's keep on this issue --- let's keep raising hell on all the issues!!!

It would be nice if Obama would say "uncle" on Single Payer Health Care!!!

[Optical.Catalyst]

107. It is past time to put Bush and his cohorts in jail

Little George's next forwarding address is going to be Leavenworth, Kansas

<><>

[jmowreader]

117. Terre Haute, Indiana, would be better

Put Shrub in Terre Haute. That's where the federal death row is.

When you have gone as far beyond the pale as that administration did, execution simply must remain on the table.

(Delete wild-ass fantasy about executing eight Bush administration players by televised firing squad.)

[Optical.Catalyst]

123. Having a web cam in Bush's solitary confinement cell would be nice

Anytime a person has a few spare minutes, they could bring up the streaming video of Bush in prison. The web site with that web cam would get quite a few hits, I would say.

[No Elephants]

195. Do you believe that anyone will go after Bush? Or that Obama and/or the Supremes will not

let him go free should anyone actually go after him and get a conviction in a lower federal court?

[Optical.Catalyst]

199. Public opinion has swayed President Obama from 'no prosecution' to 'consideration of prosecution'

If we just accept NO PROSECUTION as the answer, then the ONLY answer is going to be no.

We have got to keep the pressure on this issue. We may not really be making progress, but we have stopped the decline.

[DutchLiberal]

109. Make sure to vote in the poll. As of now, 56% say no Bush officials should be prosecuted.

[No Elephants]

190. I'm sure what the Obama administration has been saying on that subject had no influence whatever on

the opinions of those polled.

:eyes:

[santamargarita]

110. When do we start?

I would have started eight years ago!

[Third Doctor]

114. A bipartisan congressional investigation?

Most of the repubs actually support torture so that won't fly at all.

[louis-t]

113. Hopefully the media will begin calling it what it is.

TORTURE. Not 'interrogations'. TORTURE.

[Divine Discontent]

118. so, someone without being snarky explain, please, why O even commented on this weeks back?

why did he say they weren't going to go after anyone for torture and we had to move on and learn from past mistakes (hated hearing that from him), when he doesn't determine what the justice dept does? Was it his way of politicizing his point that the prosecutions didn't come from his order? Right? Any other reason?


MORE AT : http://www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Stinger2]

121. Spain: No torture probe of US officials

Spain: No torture probe of US officials
4/17/09




The prosecutors wrote that going after lawyers who wrote nonbinding recommendations for the president and his senior staff, rather than targeting higher-ranking officials who authorized the alleged torture, "raises important problems from a legal standpoint."

It also questioned the appropriateness of a case that would effectively put on trial "all of the policies of the past U.S. administration (as reproachable as they may be)," saying such an endeavor would go beyond the scope of the Spanish legal system.

http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=16431

It looks like countries like Spain are giving us the chance to probe are own International Law breakers before they take it on.

[EFerrari]

133. The Spanish judge is not backing off unless we do something.

That statement is from the Spanish AG and it's not his call, it's the judges call.

It's all good, though. If we move, that judge will lay back. If we don't, he won't.

[redqueen]

122. My guess... to get the reaction he did.

Now we have cover to go after these evil fucks without it being called a 'partisan witch hunt'.

If I'm right, it's a brilliant strategy.

[jeff30997]

126. I really hope you're right.

That would be a brilliant strategy indeed.

[No Elephants]

194. I think he said what he said originally because that is what he wanted and still wants. However,

the reaction to what he said was swift and markedly adverse, from politicians, voters, and human rights organizations.

BTW, I don't think what he said originally is all that different from what he is saying now. Bascially, he seems to be in favor of going after a couple of lawyers and those who tortured in bad faith.

I don't see any lawyers going to jail for writing a legal opinion. I don't see how you prove in a court of law beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone knew what he was doing was illegal, but he did it anyway--once you set up a category called "tortured in good faith." Given we cannot read minds and only someone who wants to end up in jail is going to testify that he know there was no way he could have been authorized to torture, but he did it anyway.

We can, I suppose, hope that a Democratic Congress will ignore the parameters set by their Party's leader. We can also hope that the Department of Justice, many of whom are Bush holdovers, will ignore the parameters set by the guy who can fire them and send them out into this economy with no job and a bad recommendation. However, my hope of convictions under these circumstances is not all that strong.

[many a good man]

120. Obama open to torture memos probe, prosecution

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer Ben Feller, Associated Press Writer – 2 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Widening an explosive debate on torture, President Barack Obama on Tuesday opened the possibility of prosecution for Bush-era lawyers who authorized brutal interrogation of terror suspects and suggested Congress might order a full investigation.

Less than a week after declaring it was time for the nation to move on rather than "laying blame for the past," Obama found himself describing what might be done next to investigate what he called the loss of "our moral bearings."

His comments all but ensured that the vexing issue off detainee interrogation during the Bush administration will live on well into the new president's term. Obama, who severely criticized the harsh techniques during the campaign, is feeling pressure from his party's liberal wing to come down hard on the subject. At the same time, Republicans including former Vice President Dick Cheney are insisting the methods helped protect the nation and are assailing Obama for revealing Justice Department memos detailing them

[valerief]

132. Not prosecuting the guilty parties is like letting your dog crap repeatedly

on your carpet. We're the carpet that gets crapped on and the guilty parties are the undisciplined dogs.

[niceypoo]

148. Obama is smart to keep himself out of it personally

Let the justice department deal with it.

[valerief]

204. Right. It's their crap to clean up. nt

[GreenArrow]

135. The door is opened. The door is closed.

But in neither way is the door going to move.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

136. Thank goodness!! nt

[natrat]

138. this is how the nazis got rolling-breakdown of the law-really important to hold accountable

[usregimechange]

140. One smart cookie

[razors edge]

142. I'm so happy to hear that

we will have another Linndie England to blame this all on.

Side note to folks in the Appalachia regions, get your kids out of the US now!!!

[tabasco]

147. Are you implying that only people from Appalachia are the torturers?

That's fucking stupid.

I have discovered in my life that stupid people say or write that kind of thing.

[razors edge]

150. Actually, I'm implying that only

people from that region who can be pigeonholed as less than well educated (not that that sort of thing ever happens here) will be persecuted, as our nation's past has proven.

Get real, even if Rove and Rice were convicted of sitting in the situation room and ordering hot pokers up the ass over closed circuit tv in real time as they sipped wine and ate cheese, who is going to go to club fed for six months, (or be pardoned to spare the nation from huge embarrassment, not look too partisan, control excesses of the judiciary... take your politically expedient pick ) and who is going to the pound me in the ass pen for ten years?

I was born and raised in that area, served in the military, and I know how easy it is to be put in that category. Some people do it without even trying.

Edit: I think those who did the shit need to go down too. There are no excuses for any of this shit except perpetuation of the hatred, and that is what it was designed for. Discredit and demotivate the designers or the structure will get rebuilt.

[totodeinhere]

158. Agreed. And any Democrats found complicit should also be prosecuted. n/t

[Odin2005]

144. Darth Cheney just shat in his pants.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

145. Isn't it interesting that we've heard nothing from Dumbyass about this?

Cheney's cooking his own goose by spouting off.

[Divine Discontent]

149. Dumya's playing with a ball of yarn in his garage - we very possibly had a mentally ill pres. eom

[GoddessOfGuinness]

173. No doubt in my mind...

The Dick is making it ever more apparent who was really in control.

[No Elephants]

193. George Bush always believed in letting others take the heat for him, even when he was a team owner.

[mdmc]

152. knick, nack, paddywack

:toast:

[alllyingwhores]

153. uhm...I'll hold my breath...again.

[Rwalsh]

154. I see 2 possibilities:

1. President Obama is not going to prosecute.

or

2. He's taking his time so he can build up a case so damning, so iron clad, so open and shut that no defense will be possible and conviction will be a foregone conclusion.

Until I hear from only him to the contrary, I'm going with the second possibility.

[frylock]

155. the door needs to be ripped from it's frame..

this is a step in the right direction to be sure, but i'd like to see something a little a stronger.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

157. I wonder if "we made him do it"

I wonder if there was enough public outrage about letting the torturers off the hook that he decided that "moving on" wasn't the best strategy.

[bjobotts]

168. You can't make Obama prosecute as it's not his job.Only the AG can prosecute or decide to prosecute

[bjobotts]

169. The Attorney General works for the American people not the president

[grahamhgreen]

181. Not yet..., but he may want us to.

[24601]

176. I believe we are being naive to believe that an opinion

can be criminalized when counsel was never in a position to order or supervise any resulting act.

Can you imagine the howls had the last administration tried to criminalize, as accessory to murder, the opinion that there was insufficient probable cause to search Moussaui's computer?

No, this is just throwing us red meat because of the uproar and soon, they will spray cold water on it/us. I got a hundred that no court ever upholds the criminalizations of any of those memos/opinions and any "case" is quashed beforee it starts. If you think senators cover each others butt, well they learned it from the lawyers.

[Left Coast2020]

180. I would like to see Bybee removed from 9th Circut Court.

I don't care if he's impeached, yanked out by his hair, or tossed out, he needs to go. I hope a protest could be organizaed in SF. I for one, would be there. If that happened I think it would send the signal the prople (that would be allof us) are serious about seeing justice. Several thousand in front of the courthouse making noise would be fine with me.

[No Elephants]

187. I emailed my Cong. Rep yesterday morning. I will do the same with my Senators today.

[No Elephants]

188. Most of them are lawyers as well as politicians, but there is no reason to bash lawyers That is a

Republican trick in which, in my opinion, Democrats should not join. Republicans bash anyone who tends to call them out, be it lawyers--including the ACLU--academics, media, whomever. Then, when any of these speak out against them, they are already discredited and no one pays attention. At least, that is the game plan.

[No Elephants]

189. This whole mess and we are down to a couple of lawyers and those who

can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have tortured in good faith.

[NoSheep]

182. Amazing. Only 49 recs. Who the fuck ARE these people on DU?

[BikeWriter]

186. Oh shit! This is after months of reluctance of course!

[JCMach1]

203. If so, it will be the first time in awhile he has pleased this lefty...

set the hounds on them!

[bdamomma]

205. AG Holder we want some action!!!!

[wiggitywack]

208. MSNBC poll shows 57% of people

do not support prosecuting officials "who devised harsh interrogation tactics and provided legal cover" for the Bush administration. That's coming from MSNBC. Something tells me this will never go anywhere. Good luck with it, though.

Link

[Octafish]

211. Obama Suggests Bush-Era Officials Could Be Prosecuted

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Obama Suggests Bush-Era Officials Could Be Prosecuted

Wednesday, April 22, 2009
WASHINGTON NEWS

President Obama signaled Tuesday that he has changed his stance on the prosecution of Bush Administration aides over the possible torture of terrorism suspects. Coverage of the story is extensive, leading all three network newscasts, and is generally negative toward the Administration. Much of it casts Obama's comments as a reversal -- one triggered by criticism from Capitol Hill Democrats and key segments of his political base. Both print and TV reports also tend to note Obama's apparent contradiction of recent comments on the issue by his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. The CBS Evening News called Obama's remarks "stunning," and noted "the White House later denied the President had reversed policy."

AFP recounts a "contentious White House briefing" in which "spokesman Robert Gibbs denied Obama had remade previous administration policy." USA Today reports that although Emanuel and Gibbs himself "have suggested recently that prosecutions of Bush lawyers were off the table, Gibbs said Tuesday that Obama's latest comments do not represent a policy shift." The Washington Times says, "When asked about the difference between Mr. Obama's remarks and Mr. Emanuel's comments, Mr. Gibbs told reporters to heed the president."

The coverage overwhelmingly describes the President's position as a clear shift. The AP reports Obama widened "an explosive debate on torture," and ABC World News said the issue "is turning into a hornet's nest for the Obama Administration." ABC added that "current Administration officials first said there would be no prosecutions: not for those who employed the techniques, not for those who authorized them as legal." ABC added that "the White House would not explain the change." NBC Nightly News reported Obama moved "under pressure from Congress and outside critics," reversing "what the President said last week and what his chief of staff said two days ago."

Roll Call refers to a "striking turnabout" by Obama, which "came as the administration began to incur fire from its allies for appearing to exclude policymakers from culpability." McClatchy says Obama's statements "caught Washington by surprise." The Wall Street Journal says Obama "has shifted several times in dealing with the Bush-era issues." CNN's Situation Room called it "a dramatic reversal" and "a sharp break from what his press secretary said 24 hours earlier." Fox News' Special Report reported Obama acted "in apparent contradiction of his own White House staff." Congressional Republicans "said they were perplexed." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "We are interested to know what is the policy or the position of the Administration. Because now it seems to be somewhat confusing."



Read more: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090422.htm

---

Hope so.

[Skinner]

212. The message from the media is loud and clear:

Torture: No big deal.
"Flip-flopping": Very, very bad.

[Frances]

214. It's not about torture

It's about bringing Obama down

Whether it's Michelle's bare arms or Obama's using a teleprompter, or whatever, it's about trying to destroy Obama.

I don't think TV will be able to destroy Obama any more than TV could destroy Bill Clinton. Even after Kenneth Starr and the blue dress and impeachment, Bill Clinton had pretty decent ratings as a President.

[salguine]

215. Much of Clinton's trouble was self-inflicted. He certainly didn't

help himself out by his actions much of the time.

[Frances]

216. It's true that Bill Clinton had trouble keeping his pants zipped,

but his policies as President helped the middle class.

It wasn't because of his zipper problem that TV went after him, it was because of his policies.

If Obama were a Republican pushing Republican policies, the TV coverage would be very different.

[Doremus]

222. I agree with the larger point but take exception to

"his policies as president helped the middle class."

Clinton was a corporatist.
Corporatists are no friends of the middle class.

NAFTA, WTO
Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Evisceration of welfare
Etc.

[salguine]

229. You got that right. Clinton didn't do dick for me.

[Frances]

230. By that logic, you could say that Obama hasn't done anything for you

I was alive when FDR died; I know the difference between FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton AND Ike, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

And I know how the media portrays the two parties.

[guruoo]

220. They're hoping to make him tip his hand n/t

[Octafish]

221. That's where DU comes in.

Excepting Horton, indivdual voices nowadays are pretty much silenced. As in Whoville, it takes a united community to be heard above the mighty Wurlitzer. DU focuses on the news that matters to the nation's citizenry -- not the sideshow that benefits Corporate McPravda and its authoritarian, anti-democratic masters.

[Froward69]

227. The coverup is always worse

than the crime.

[boomerbust]

213. This supporter

Has your back Mr. President.:smoke:

[Soylent Brice]

217. i love how one man can make the entire M$M absolutely insane.

K&R

[jody]

218. Looks like Obama adopts whatever political position lets him lead the herd of opinion. n/t

[boomerbust]

223. Spoken like

A true Alabama Shelby supporter. Fuck you!

[jody]

225. Have a nice day. n/t

[glitch]

226. "There go the people. I must follow them for I am their leader."

Said by DUer Laelth, Martin Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and originally Alexandre Ledru-Rollin. Not a bad way to lead, for the most part.

[WriteDown]

219. Seems to be a lot of "suggesting" going on. nt.

[The Stranger]

224. If they tortured, I hope they fry.

[yodermon]

228. Sound & Fury signifiying Nothing.

The AG/DOJ decides who/if to prosecute. Not the President. At least in normal, ethical administrations.

It matters precisely fuck-all what Gibbs, Emanuel, or even Obama has to say on the issue.

In fact, *any* statement by members of the Office of the Executive as to whether xyz individual on planet earth "should" or "should not" be prosecuted, and "why", is already a de facto politicization of Justice.

It will work in their favor (politically), however, to have been officially "against" prosecutions, and then have Holder say "well shit, we need an independent counsel after all, given all this new evidence coming to light!" Because then the only argument from the right will be "Cheez, Barack, can't you even control your own AG? Ya know, like Bush did? Oh wait."

The media is still operating in "the POTUS is dictator of the DOJ" mode. Which is fine, because they'll all be proven to be full of shit.