Obama bashers, please ignore: Conyers begins torture investigation that is better than Leahy's!

[zulchzulu]

If you still think that Obama is ignoring the torture issue or even backs Bush's policies, please don't read on. Information is apparently bad for you. For the others that think that Obama should be the person to investigate Bush's torture actions since he has nothing else better to do, you may not want to read on either.

But for those of you with a clear mind and a pretty good understanding about Civics 101 as well as how investigations into past administrations can happen outside the Oval Office, this information is probably something you figured was happening anyway.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) today issued not one but two press releases responding to the latest batch of Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel torture memos produced yesterday by the Justice Department in response to Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Conyers, of course, has been pressing for a “National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties,” composed of experts outside government “to investigate the broad range of policies of the Bush administration that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers.” Unlike Sen. Pat Leahy’s (D-Vt.) proposed “Commission of Inquiry,” the House bill, which has 27 cosponsors, would not provide immunity for officials who broke the law.

http://washingtonindependent.com/39447/conyers-renews-call-for-investigation-of-bush-administration-actions

Here's HR104: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-104 and the summary:

Establishes the National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties to investigate, and report to the President and Congress on, the broad range of policies of the Bush Administration that were undertaken under claims of unreviewable war powers, including: (1) detention by the Armed Forces and the intelligence community; (2) the use by such entities of enhanced interrogation techniques or techniques not authorized by the Uniform Code of Military Justice; (3) "ghosting" or other policies intended to conceal an individual's capture or detention; (4) extraordinary rendition; and (5) domestic warrantless electronic surveillance.

Not providing immunity for those who are having to under testimonial scrutiny is absolutely critical. Consider how Oliver North was able to just about say anything he wanted in the Iran-Contra hearings. Consider all the others who went before the 911 Commission that had legal immunity.

As some well know, Obama has clearly defined that torture is illegal and also released torture documents that clearly show that the Bush administration was lying. Besides the fact that the White House is not the only place where legal investigations are initiated and realized, as some here know on DU, the Judiciary Committee, run by Conyers, can report to Obama on what they have found.

As for those that think Obama is "for torture", is "just like Bush", etc., here's the statement made by Obama as part of his release of CIA torture documents:

“The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer - it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration's approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America's standing in the world, not how you strengthen it. It's time to tell the world that America rejects torture without exception or equivocation. It's time to stop telling the American people one thing in public while doing something else in the shadows. No more secret authorization of methods like simulated drowning. When I am president America will once again be the country that stands up to these deplorable tactics. When I am president we won't work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution, we will be straight with the American people and true to our values."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/10/sweet_blog_special_obama_react.html

Yeah, he's obviously for torture... or, um, actually not. The New York Times article that reported his release of the CIA documents has this little tidbit:

Mr. Obama said that C.I.A. officers who were acting on the Justice Department’s legal advice would not be prosecuted, but he left open the possibility that anyone who acted without legal authorization could still face criminal penalties. He did not address whether lawyers who authorized the use of the interrogation techniques should face some kind of penalty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/us/politics/17detain.html

Oh yeah... there is the Executive Order that Obama instituted on January 22, 2009 (two days after his inauguration):

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to improve the effectiveness of human intelligence gathering, to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody and of United States personnel who are detained in armed conflicts, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order. Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order. Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/

Obama is for torture? He wants Bush to get away with it? You would absolutely disagree with those questions if you are informed.

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Maybe So But Remember That Conyers Did Not Get Far On Impeachment - Not Holding My Breath

eom

[Kablooie]

55. That's my impression too. He's not a 'get it done at any cost' kind of guy.

He's more of a 'I'll do it as long as it's safe' kind of guy.
Not what is needed in this case.

[NJmaverick]

2. You get a rec for this line alone- "Information is apparently bad for you."

[Raineyb]

24. Pot meet kettle n/t

[NJmaverick]

31. Are you one of the angry Obama bashers?

Did you take offense by my comments?

[Raineyb]

54. No but I have more than a few disagreements as far as direction is concerned

based on his choice of advisors and I used facts to come by my position thank you. And I'm tired of the accusation that if you disagree with Obama you're doing so based on no data whatsoever.

[Clio the Leo]

34. Aint that the truth! I'm gonna give him one more! NT

[Two Americas]

81. why?

Because that increases the hostility and animosity? Because that zaps those who disagree with you?

What would you see that as a good thing?

[NJmaverick]

84. The Obama bashers are hostile be nature

The OP is merely pointing out the willful ingorance that is their trademark. Balanced, reasoned and thoughtful concerns and criticisms are one thing. The blantant Obama bashing that is marked by extremes, emotion instead of reason, hyperbole, knee jerk reactions and in many cases outright hostility is quite another. Unfortunately on DU there is just as much of the former as there is the latter.

[Two Americas]

92. you didn't answer my question

Why do you want to fan the flames here about this?

I am one of the people you are talking about, I am forced to assume, since I am one who is frequently attacked for "hating Obama" and the like.

I do not post with "emotion instead of reason, hyperbole, knee jerk reactions and in many cases outright hostility" nor am I engaging in "blatant Obama bashing." I know that. It is of course impossible to prove, impossible to defend oneself from insinuation and implication.

So what you have me do? What would satisfy you? What would you have done with people such as myself?


...

[NJmaverick]

93. As the admins have mentioned, many of us look at DU as an escape from the

non-stop Dem bashing from the right wing controled media. We look to DU as a place where Democrats are supported. If DU is filled with Obama bashing threads, how is it any better than Free Republic. So this should not be framed as fanning the flames as much as a push for DU to go back to its roots. You know, the DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[Two Americas]

95. hiding behind admin

Many of us come here to escape right wing debate tactics and conservative ideas. Those are being promoted under the cover of "supporting the president" and being "loyal to the party."

It is not true that it is only the party or the politicians that are protected here, that the only purpose of the site is to promote politicians and the party. We have a right to defend the principles and ideals, as well - the principles and ideals, support for which we are all presumed to share here, is the entire reason - the only reason - for supporting any party or politician in the first place.

It is not true that criticism from the Left of party politicians is the same as what happens at Free Republic, as you insinuate here.

It is not true that criticism from the Left of politicians is "bashing" the party or the politicians.

It is no true that DU is full of "Obama bashing threads."

Making these provocative and unsupported claims that you make here is fanning the flames.

DU's roots are not about party loyalty, and never were. These calls for party "loyalty" and "support" for politicians is very new, and is being used to attack people and ideas that were once relatively safe from being attacked here. At one time we supported Democrats in the hope that they would advance the causes we support. Now we are being asked to temper our support for the causes based on what might be best for the careers of politicians. That is a radical change away from DU's roots.


...

[NJmaverick]

96. I got news for you the far left employees identical tactics to the far right

they are merely two sides of the same coin. To suggest that there is such a thing is "right wing debate tactics' couldn't be farther afield of the truth.

Actually if you review the rules you will find the following:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

Notice it doesn't say you are free to bash and slame Democratic candidates because they don't follow your perosnal agenda.

[kenfrequed]

99. false equivalency argument.

This is one of those moderate-conservative media based equivalency arguments that is complete fiction.


I'm not even sure explaining the difference to you will have any real effect.

So how about a few questions, since you seem to think you know percisely how and why right wing republicans are the same as left wing democrats:

How do said left wingers inform themselves and is it identical to how the right wing does so?

What policies do left wingers support that are substantively similar to right wingers?

What tactics or arguments do right wingers use that are identical to what left wingers use?

[NJmaverick]

105. Did you even read what I wrote? I have already told you I don't believe in the myth that the right

has the monopoly on intellectually dishonesty. I have seen extemist on the left employ the exact same tactics.

[kenfrequed]

109. Ok

Yeah and I was NOT agreeing with you.

My questions were an effort to make you qualify your assertions. If you are unable to do so than your statements are the usual irrational moderation style media BS that we have all been slowly drowned with over the years.

So rather than a "well your crap smells bad too" bit of nonsense I challenge you to actually post a solid example or three. You know, engage a bit on this.

[NJmaverick]

113. I am stating my observations

the, "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes", argument will be lost on me.

[Two Americas]

117. this is not an "observation"

"...you are free to bash and slame Democratic candidates because they don't follow your perosnal agenda."

That is a guess, not an observation. You cannot observe those things. You are interpreting and insinuating.


...

[NJmaverick]

121. The follow your personal agenda part is a given

after all there are no official liberal positions.

The bash and slam is an opinion, but I don't think an unreasonable one.

[Two Americas]

126. not at all

The political Left is based on taking positions that help others. The right wing likes to characterize that as "personal agendas" because of left wing positions are seen as merely personal agendas that rips the heart out of them and opens them up to ridicule and dismissal.

I am suspicious of the argument that "there are no official positions." Of course there are not. However, what does that mean? That anything anyone wants to call "liberal" therefore is? That there are no standards?

How are we to define "bash and slam?" Is that anything that anyone declares to be "bash and slam?" and again, what do you think should be done about the people who you say are bashing and slamming? How do we know that "bash and slam" does not really mean "things I would rather not hear because it impinges on my need to feel positive about the team I am identifying with and rooting for?"


...

[kenfrequed]

129. Nonsense.

You haven't stated any actual observations, merely your opinions. A proper observations should probably have something substantive behind it rather than merely a belief that the left and right use the same tactics.

If you can't give more concrete examples of what you have percisely observed than your observations cannot be taken seriously or be lent any real weight.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your 'conventional wisdom.'

[Two Americas]

100. that is pure opinion

As I said earlier, I am one of the people targeted for attack.

Notice also that I am not using any smears or personal attacks, yet you insist on keeping derogatory terms in the discussion - you are characterizing critics in an inflammatory way, and demanding that we accept that as the truth, as the baseline for the discussion.

Would you accept it if I characterized you as a "bot" or "groupie" and insisted that this was "the truth" and had to be used as a baseline, as a given, for the discussion about this? Why would you expect me to accept the characterizations of me as a "pouter" or "whiner" and the rest of that crap?

Am I "bashing and slamming Democratic candidates because they don't follow my personal agenda?" I am one of the people most often accused of "tearing down our president" so why don't you address your remarks to me - use me as a proxy for your wrath - and make your point?

I deny that I have a "personal agenda" that I am pushing at the expense of the greater cause or the community, and it is demeaning to have my thinking characterized that way - without any evidence for those insinuations and leaving me no way to defend myself from the charge. I deny that I am criticizing for the sake of criticizing, or that my ideas are "poutrage" or "whining." I deny that I am trying to "tear down our president" or "help the Republicans."

So now what? What would you have me do? What would satisfy you? What do you think the community should do about people such as me?


...

[NJmaverick]

106. More like observation from more than 2 decades of conversing with liberals and conservatives

on a wide range of topics.

[Two Americas]

108. ok

My opinions are based on my observations. What makes yours valid and mine not?

[NJmaverick]

114. Well have you spent over 2 decades? Have you conversed with many right wingers?

I have belonged to open debate forums where the right and the left were both welcomed. I even ran the number one Yahoo groups debate group. By speaking to and dealing with people from both ends of the spectrum, and everything in between, I have gained quite a few insights on this matter.

Besides I have been told being perseptive is one of my strongest characteristics. I am a student of human nature.

[Two Americas]

119. yes

I have toured and spoken for years all over the country for decades to thousands of people, especially in rural conservative areas, and in poor urban neighborhoods.

How is this relevant to the discussion here?


...

[NJmaverick]

128. So here is a good example of the both sides of the coin

I have seen many right wingers that are completely certain of their position. There isn't a doubt in their mind that they are right. As a result they are unwilling to listen and tend to be dismissive of anyone that doesn't agree with them. Yet here at DU you have some people that are so certain of their positions that they will attack the NEW DEMOCRATIC President. They are so sure they are right, they will not give him the benefit of the doubt nor will they even give him the time to see if he is right or wrong. Same sort of certainty of position, just different positions.

[Two Americas]

133. maybe

Merely saying that you see the two groups the same way does not make it so, does it?

I am quite certain about the issue of torture, and unyielding on it. I do not see "two sides," and refuse to see two sides. Are you saying that makes me a right winger?

Likewise, my support for organized Labor, for public education and teachers, my opposition to bigotry and racism, are ironclad and unyielding. I am unwilling to see "two sides" to those issues.

I will no give the "benefit of the doubt" on those subjects - ever.

You are saying that what matters is how certain people are in their positions, regardless of what they are. Is this to be seen as more important than whether or not they are right?

By the way I am not trying to see whether or not Obama or any other politician is "right or wrong." I don't think that is what we elect representatives for, and I do not think that is what politics is about. You are free to see it that way, and to take that position, but you have no right to force that on the rest of us, do you?

I never would give any politician "the benefit of the doubt" or "the time to see if they is right or wrong." Why would we do that? Why do you insist that we must do that, or be attacked as disloyal and as not welcome?

...

[Two Americas]

102. questions

Are you determined to carry on this feud? Are you going to insist that those who disagree with you be called whiners and pouters and are selfish and the rest? Is there no way to reconcile and reach an understanding?

If so, why?

Are you certain that I, and others, are the enemy? Let's just talk about me. Am I your enemy?


...

[NJmaverick]

110. I don't know about "feud". I am thinking you are looking for validation for your anti-Obama agenda

Just my opinion on the matter.

[Two Americas]

120. well I could say the same thing

You are insisting on the acceptance of pejorative terms based on insinuations and speculation to describe those who disagree with you.

But what I am saying, as opposed to what you imagine my hidden agenda to be, is that we should resolve the disagreement and reconcile the two factions. You cannot know that I am sincere of course, but you cannot know that I am not, either. And regardless of that, what is there to fear from attempts at reconciliation?



...

[NJmaverick]

122. I don't need validation. The Admins have already made it clear this is not a forum for Obama bashin

nor is it a forum for bashing Obama supporters.

[Two Americas]

131. that is not responsive

What you mean is "I am interpreting the admins position on this as a validation for what I am doing, and as a weapon to use against those who disagree with me."

I am one accused of "bashing Obama" and I deny that I am doing that. Admin may have said that "this is not a forum for Obama bashing" but that does not mean that "therefore those whom I declare to be bashing are not welcome."


...

[Two Americas]

104. are you gone?

Have you abandoned the discussion?

[Two Americas]

107. I don't undertsand

How can this subject be so important that it warrants hundreds of posts and bitter battles, but not important enough to discuss in depth in the hope of reaching an understanding?

I understand that you may just be away from the computer. But too often, these discussions are abandoned without any resolution, and then are re-started again and again and again with ever-escalating animosity.


...

[NJmaverick]

112. You want to understand? I will offer up this

My other passion, beside politics, is sports. Now if you go on to say a Yankees message board and start bashing the Yankee orgnanization and its players, you are not going to be very welcome by the other posters. Sure you can offer up constructive and thoughtful critiques and that will certainly be welcomed. However even with that, if you are offering up nothing but criticism you will wear out your welcome. Eventually it's going to reach a point where people will feel like they are on the Boston Red Sox's message board, instead of the Yankee board.

[Two Americas]

123. are those two analogous?

Are we to see a political discussion board as similar to a sports discussion board? Are we to see team loyalty as an important factor in political discussions, and over-riding consideration? Is this the "team Democrat" board, where only the type of support and loyalty and cheer leading that we express for a sports team is to be allowed or welcome?

I am quite a fan of the Detroit Red Wings. I see absolutely no parallels between that and the way I see politics. Besides, I am free to criticize the Red Wing management without anyone accusing me of disloyalty or "hurting the team" - even from the most loyal and fanatical followers of the team.

That means that even if we should see loyalty to a political party as analogous to loyalty to a sports team, still sports fans are not as demanding about team loyalty as you say we should be about the party.


...

[NJmaverick]

125. Yes as a matter of fact they are very similar

I guess if you had the experience with both you would see that.

[Two Americas]

132. I strongly disagree

I would say that it would depend upon the way one approached politics whether or not one saw it as similar to being a fan of a sports team. Certainly the MSM wants us all to see politics that way.

I have been extremely active in politics at all levels for 4 decade. and have never seen anything I did as analogous to being a fan of a sports team. That has never led to being excluded from working in politics - no one has ever demanded this sort of team loyalty, like your loyalty to the Yankees, as a prerequisite for being heard or for being seen as an ally. Yet you are saying that should exclude me from participation here?


...

[kenfrequed]

134. An utterly revealing analogy

And the fact you would use such a comparison describes what you don't seem to be getting about politics and issues.

A board for supporters of a team is at absolute worst going to be merely a rah-rah cheering squad where everyone sits around and talks up their favorite team. (an exercise that would be fully lost on me)

At possibly best (or worst...or rather worser than worst...heh) would be a 'team board' where you sit around and talk about plays and tactics and whether you like or hate the head coach and how much you want a new stadium.

Alright that said, lets take this thing called democracy and look at what its about. Having argued politics with people for almost my entire life (I grew up in the sticks-no shortage of conservatives to sharpen my claws on there) I think I can speak with as much authority as anyone else here. Add to that my involvement in Democratic politics-I attend almost all primaries and caucuses and have gone to the state convention twice in 2006 and 2008 here in Minnesota and I think I can speak as well as either of you.

Anyhow with Democracy you actually have disagreements about how things are done. Funny that. And people have opinions based on the information they have encountered, their personal beliefs, their interests, their hopes and dreams, and what they think will happen next. Given this there is something of a staked interest in its operation that is less present in a sports club.

Also unlike the sports club there are these things called issues. And most of us seem to be interested in these 'issues' because they represent the changes we want to see made in government policy.

If an issue is not addressed or treated seriously or if we get the impression that an elected official that we supported has decided to back off from then we tend to get angry.

Constructive critiques on a sports board could only be framed in terms of tactics. Discussion on a discussion board will probably have more to do with issues.

When someone discusses issues and you scream about someone being anti-obama or disloyal or whatever other nonsense you accomplish few things of value.

1. You end up using obvious republican tactics. "With us or against us" etc

2. You alienate the people from the party.

3. You make the party more about personality than about policy.

[Raineyb]

141. I think you've hit the nail square on the head.

I couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

:applause:

Regards

[NJmaverick]

144. You seem oblivious to the realities and dangers of our nation's situation

if we don't support the Democrats no one will. There is another team, the Republicans, that have strong support and will be more than happy to take over. You need to remember that danger is always there. Don't be fooled into complacency because the party seems down. They have been down before but with loyal members and a few devious tricks they managed to get right back in power so they could ruin our nation.

[Raineyb]

140. I think your analogy is exactly what is wrong with American politics

It's not about a bloody team it's supposed to be about what's best for the country and there are times when the Democrats are not doing the right thing and have to be called out on it when this happens. If cheering for the team is more important than doing the right thing then I can see why nothing will ever get done. Because while you're waiting to see if your team will do things your way the other side is lobbying to make sure it gets done their way. Guess who wins in that scenario.

Hint: It's not you.

Regards

[NJmaverick]

143. Sadly it's about team. If you don't support team Democrat

there is team republican, with much more loyal and stronger supporters, that will be happy to take over. That is a danger that so many seem totally oblivious to.

[Raineyb]

145. That is a pile of crap

It's exactly the same mentality that the freepers have about their people and look how well it's served them and the rest of the country. I'm not buying it. It's bullshit.

Regards

[NJmaverick]

146. That is the reality that we live in

deny it at all of our peril

[Raineyb]

147. So in other words lockstep or die?

I'll take the third option. I don't do lockstep.

Regards

[NJmaverick]

148. You (I suspect deliberately) mixed up being supportive

with marching lock step. I would think that the need for such intellectually dishonest tactics, to suppurt your opinion, should tip you off to the flaws in your position.

[Raineyb]

150. No I am basing it exactly on your "team theory of politics"

You think the team is more important than principle. Lockstep or die is what it translates to. I have no loyalty to a party but to a principle and the Democratic party is closest to that principle out of the two parties. I will not put up with crap out of Democrats simply because they're Democrats. Your position allows for Democrats to do whatever the hell they want do long as they have a D after their name. It's not ethical, it allows for abuses, and it doesn't hold the politicians, who are supposed to work for we the people, to account for anything they do. It's exactly the attitude that allows them to talk like progressives while not doing a damn thing they promise and think that they can do so with impunity. The flawed position in this case is yours.

[sui generis]

130. I call steaming pile of bullshit

The OP is saying everyone that doesn't agree with him is a wife beater, but they need not read further or reply.

I'm not sure I can disagree in harsh enough terms - the post is divisive and the poster is a good deal more inciteful than insightful.

Here's the steaming turd award for this thread: Have a heyday,

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[zulchzulu]

158. OK. Green is Red. Black is White. Cold is Hot. I get it now...

Should we let people who have no idea what the role of the Justice Department does have the "right" to bash Obama because they are clueless?

Yes. Right?

Should people be uninformed about how the basics of government works and use their utter ignorance of these issues to bash Obama?

Of course!

Should ignorance be better than being informed?

Apparently so!

Being a dumb ass should be what we Democrats should be... from the likes of people who think that pointing out how some people are inept is somehow "divisive".

Stupidity is better than being intelligent. That's your stance.

[sui generis]

167. wow your telepathy is phenomenal

ask yourself a question, then answer it, then come to your own conclusion.

That really is stupid.

Point being the premise of the thread was to exclude, by name calling. I'm going to go out on a limb here and just state the truth of the matter:

It's OKAY to disagree with Obama's performance, and we should do so without fear of some cultish dickbrain calling us "Obama-bashers".

Now, run along child. You've had your fifteen seconds.

[HopeOverFear]

3. Thank you, Zulch

[AtomicKitten]

4. Music to my ears.

:hi:

[zulchzulu]

6. Gotta love that icon, AK..

One hour to go for me...

[AtomicKitten]

16. Happy 420 to you!

:)

[omega minimo]

5. Why frame this news with divisive, misguided, derogatory flamebait & intentionally alienate others?

And if you were "informed" you would know that John Conyers and Patrick Leahy have been trying to do the People's business for a very long time, including during the Bush reign.

Obama's message is we're all in this together.

The irresponsible way this OP is presented is another example of how misguided and toxic this forum has become.

Intentionally and continuously alienating others will further discredit it and limit the voices willing to participate in an echo chamber of blatantly antagonistic and misguided attitudes.

[zulchzulu]

7. Why not?

Some people won't listen or read before they vomit out Teabag nonsense, so fuck 'em.

[omega minimo]

9. clearly

"Intentionally and continuously alienating others will further discredit it and limit the voices willing to participate in an echo chamber of blatantly antagonistic and misguided attitudes."

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[JimGinPA]

15. Insinuating the OP Isn't "Informed" Is Worse Than Condescending...

It brings to mind a certain feminine hygiene apparatus...



Seems like you might have been better served to study the last sentence of your post a little more as you cut & pasted it.

[omega minimo]

18. "Seems like you might have been better served to study the last sentence of" THE OP "a little more"

"Obama is for torture? He wants Bush to get away with it? You would absolutely disagree with those questions if you are informed."



Which is why "informed" was in quotes.

Which is why your misguided attempt to be "Worse Than Condescending" turns out to be the douchbaggery.

:evilgrin: :spray:

Damn that KARMA. Ran over your DOGMA. :rofl:

[zulchzulu]

21. One part of me wants to edit the comments out, but then again...

...some people just seem like they are itchin' to attack Obama without clearly looking at the full picture. That's not just here on DU. It includes others who have failed to notice some things I pretty much found obvious... politics is a subtle game with many parts.

If people really want a return to torture, keep trashing Obama without doing some homework... we can lose the House and Senate in 2010 to the Repigs... that's all I'm saying...

[omega minimo]

23. Thank you for considering the edit. Maybe next time taunts won't seem like such a good idea.

:thumbsup:

[mkultra]

83. they seemed to have worked for you in this case.

[Voice for Peace]

70. maybe it's a question of being too informed.. it's not the obama bashing that is getting to me,

it's stuff like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x300000

that makes me discouraged about what's going on. I'm still willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because there are so many things he's doing that I support but the whole thing of looking forward and not holding the last administration accountable is just infuriating.

[JimGinPA]

25. On The Contrary...

I not only read it, I agree with it.

Your clever attempt to hurl it back at him was the true "douchbaggery". I know the OP, and now I "know" you.

[omega minimo]

36. You say the insult by your friend is OK cuz he's your friend, not OK when it's mirrored back to him

Typical.


THAT is douchbaggy, trying to justify your BS even after the OP acknowledged his own second thoughts about the digs. :thumbsdown:

And pretentious on top!!! :toast: Hard to tell if you actually take your (troublemaking) self seriously but I don't.

[zulchzulu]

37. Lay off my buddy Jim

Sheesh... the guy is a good man. A loyal friend. Smart. A friggin' stud.

Pick on me.

[JimGinPA]

41. LOL

:rofl:

[JimGinPA]

39. Sorry - I Didn't Realize He Had Called You Out Personally

I thought it was just meant to counter the malcontents here generically. My bad.

[Egnever]

56. your posts are worthless why you aren't banned is beyond me

95% of your posts are worthless tripe bashing obama or your fellow Dem's on this board.

I tried not to put you on ignore but if the mods cant do it I suppose I will ban you myself. goodbye, and congrats on being the only person on my list.

[omega minimo]

60. well 2 replies make no sense and I can't read the third one.............

:hi: :hi: :thumbsdown:

[bbgrunt]

58. thank you o.m., oooommmmmm.

[TankLV]

77. And Conyers has been a fucking BIGTIME disappointment in that regards...

all PROMISES but no ACTION...

I'll believe him AFTER he DOES something...

[zulchzulu]

85. It's not a video game! Conyers is doing the best he can while getting...

...railroaded, stalled and back-handed by people that are supposed to cooperate.

I could look up the link, but the last I checked, Conyers was waiting for Republicans to submit documents to his committee and they never got back to him on the impeachment issue.

It's not a video game where you just got the pistol and start shooting... it's a legal process with lots of hairballs and hurdles...

[Two Americas]

103. I agree with that

I think most of the attacks on Conyers have been unwarranted. He is not in anyone's pocket, and is constrained by the leadership, if anything.


...

[cali]

8. uh, how is his investigation better than Leahy's?

neither has really started. And frankly, I'll put my money on Leahy and Whitehouse. They're both considerably sharper, imo, than Conyers.

[populistdriven]

10. He doesn't care what we think it is a publicity stunt for those lefties that fall for it but

sorry John,

We have moved on.

-the Lefties.

[omega minimo]

11. No more DU respect than that for Congressman Conyers?

:wow:

[roguevalley]

13. sure. he needs to actually make it happen and we can believe again.

[peace13]

115. Omega, John's job is to come in and push some paper around.

Take the Ohio 2004 Stolen election. He came in pushed some paper, listened to some folks and nothing happened. Every year we hear a little more about the hacked machines and the big thievery by Rove and *. I like Congressman Conyers but if he is going to take this on, he needs to land one this time! The people who have followed this stuff for years are exhausted by the wheel this man runs on, trying futilely to get to the bottom of things.

[roguevalley]

12. I'm tired of people saying they are going to do this. I will be interested

when it happens and it doesn't appear limited or a white wash. I love Conyers but he has fits and starts too many times.

[omega minimo]

14. "Fits and starts" due to logjams being thrown in the way of his diligent work and COURAGE to stand

up for us.

[populistdriven]

20. JC is over rated, as if he even read the analog hole bill he consponsored with Sensenbrenner

if he had read it and had half a brain he would have never sponsored that draconian piece of filth. I have no doubt one of JC's buddies over at bet gave it to him and he handed it to this staff and said 'make it happen' and he never read it.

so I can only conclude that it was written by riaa lobbyists who 'paid' JC to sponsor it and he never even bothered to read it

nah JC is OUR problem and we need to keep him on a short leash and let the grownups run things and enforce the law instead of just staging media events and cosponsoring filth like that bill with James Sensenbrenner

John and his Good Old Buddy Analog Hole Bill Co-Sponsor James Sensenbrenner




you can flush both of them out of DC as far as I am concerned, he is an attention monger and accomplishes little but takes credit for other peoples work

and if he had an ounce of courage he would have stood up to his lobbyist friends at bet and told them to shove it, if you doubt me do something JC didn't - read the goddamn bill

[theFrankFactor]

73. I Have to Agree

Less BULLSHIT more ACTION!

Conyers is cute in a really annoying, ultra-slow talking, makes my skin crawl kind-a way. He helps to point the way toward shit that Dems fail to accomplish. A legacy of half-baked failures.

I would LOVE to see Democrats grow a set. With the MANDATE Obama had going in, I had hoped he might consider using his political capital to show some balls. Picking the entire Clinton Zombie Army for his cabinet was a kick in the teeth and has pretty much set the tone. MONEY FIRST!

And as you can see, it really smoothed things over with the right wing... FUCKING NOT!!!!!!




SHOW AUDIO FILE:
http://media.switchpod.com/users/jd/TheFrankFactorShow15042009a.mp3

[liberation]

101. yeah, John Conyers' speaking seems overly subdued most of the time...

I figured out his speech is mostly influenced by the copious amounts of Xanax he must ingest in order to cope with being married to Monica Conyers, Detroit councilwoman extraordinaire. Here she is in all her "glory":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZQLxVO-qjM&feature=related

I almost feel sorry for the poor dude. And then I remember that the only time Conyers showed any sort of spine was when he called the capitol police to kick out the people who had gathered outside his office demanding he did his damn job. Count me less than impressed that he is "on the case." I expect a couple of stern-worded letters as an outcome. That will show them!


Bah... useless w*nkers the lot of them.

[populistdriven]

22. Hey Conyers!!!!! READ the g*()*&@*& bill here it is for your convenience

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/HR-4569-DTCSA-Analog-Hole.pdf

seriously, the american people deserve an apology, just admit you never read it and we would all feel better about you

[zulchzulu]

17. Leahy's allows for immunity. I'm sure you know what that means...

[Baby Snooks]

57. Immunity from what?

They are NOT going to be prosecuted. What is it that everyone does not understand about that? They are NOT going to be prosecuted.

[rocktivity]

19. As I listened to Keith's Special Comment the other night

(link), I thought, "He's not saying anything Obama hasn't already figured out. Obama is more than intelligent enough to understand that his stance makes him look incompetent at best and like he's deliberately obstructing justice at worst. So either he's being intimidated by unseen forces...OR, he's got something else up his sleeve." Woot, here it is!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. This is NOT Obama (Executive Branch); this is Congress (Legislative Branch)

Just because Conyers may be pursuing this doesn't mean that he'll get far if the administration keeps violating the principle of separation of powers and checks and balances.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. Me? A Freeper? LOL!! You must not have been on the forum very long...

[tomp]

62. you have a nasty attitude and it looks like you're spoiling for a fight. nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

135. What exactly did I do to have a nasty attitude? I disagreed with the president. That makes me nasty?

I was then accused of being a Freeper. I was called a name, but I'm nasty? When defending myself, you call me "nasty". Black meet kettle.

[tomp]

138. i'm sorry, i may have posted in the wrong place.

i also disagree with the president. i was trying to respond to the op who came out guns blazing for anyone who's not an obamaphile.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

139. No worries...

;)

[muryan]

27. I'm sorry this is just unacceptable

You've mentioned torture without making references to AIPAC, Rahm Emanuel or veiled references to jews. You've also pointed out that congress does indeed have the authority to pursue investigations.

The trolls won't tolerate this...

[rateyes]

28. Conyers is Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. He already has

the authority to investigate this. A commission, such as he describes, is, IMO, a way for him to pass the buck. Conyers needs to step up to the plate, and have his own committee investigate this.

BTW, when are the Rove and Miers depositions happening?

'nuff said about Conyer's feet dragging.

[zulchzulu]

42. Why are "progressives" trashing my main man, John Conyers?

Wussup wit dat, y'all. I mean, she it.

[rateyes]

118. Because Conyers has proven to be all bark, no bite. nt

[MzShellG]

29. "Obama bashers" should be out front and center....

Backing Rep Conyers on this. He's been trying to bring * to justice forever. Maybe now he will finally get some support.

[sniffa]

30. This is a great OP

but I'm not enjoying it as much as I should because of the title.

[Cali_Democrat]

32. Why?

I don't think the title applies to you. You're not an Obama basher, right?

[zulchzulu]

40. Sniffa!

How is Beantown spring coming along? (Former Bay Bay/JP resident)

I had some pretty rowdy coffee when I did the OP... you get the gist...

[sniffa]

44. As usual it's still too cold

Even so I'm wearing shorts whenever possible.

I do get it. I just wanted to let you know in the least possible obnoxious way (I'm obnoxious, usually) that your OP was great on it's own without the Obama bashers tag.

I was possibly one of the most over the top Primary warriors but since Obama has taken the oath I've become somewhat protective of the Obama criticizers (with the exception of a few who I still love to hate on and go after) to a point. In general, I've come to view the threads that target/mention Obama bashers as not targeting that same crowd of the primaries/GE but DUers who mainly share the same ideals.

That's just where I'm at right now. :hi:

[zulchzulu]

46. i walked my dog in shorts tonight where the wind chill was 40 degrees...

...here in Madison.

It's spring, damm it!

All the best on spring showing up (before going right into summer) in Beantown sometime soon...

[newview88]

33. Well said n/t

[wroberts189]

35. KR nt

[NYC_SKP]

43. Refreshingly sober and logical. Thank you, zulchzulu.

Recommended.

:toast:

[yellerpup]

45. K&R!

Thanks, ZZ! :applause:

[Hekate]

47. KnR. There are 3 branches of government,& the Legislative and Judicial branches need to get going

... not just the Executive.

So, go Conyers. That old fox has boxes and boxes of evidence just waiting to be used.

Hekate

[puebloknot]

48. Not an Obama basher. Also not an unconsidered follower.

I want very much for Obama to be the change he has talked about, and the "Pied Piper" who will inspire us all to rise to our highest good.

But .... all the talk about looking ahead (and brushing the past under the table, as far as we've been able to discern so far) has caused me to feel a great deal of doubt about him of late.

I often make the point that after WWII, We, the Allies were able to both conduct the Nuremberg trials, and administer the Marshall Plan. Obama can delegate sufficiently to see that we take care of all our pressing needs, and *not* ignore the rule of law and reputation of this country into the future. He's doing a great job of mending fences with our old friends, for now. But if he doesn't walk the talk with regard to what we as a people stand for, then all his hand-shaking will come to naught.

No President in the history of the country has taken on the mantle of leader of the country with so many pressing problems. I have felt that he has the personal intelligence and character (as far as I was able to tell) to do the job. But let us remember that it is the duty of We, the People to observe and comment on the acts of our President, and our Congress, and our Judicial system. To criticize constructively is not to *bash*. We give up that right at our own peril.

I hope, very much, that Mr. Conyers is able to deliver the goods this time. I have been puzzled by his apparent about-face right after the 2006 elections on the matter of impeachment. As a citizen, I want to know what my government is doing, to the extent is does not really affect national security.

I appreciate the INFORMATION you have delivered in this message. I will put you on my "watch list" for further informative articles. I think your voice would be more clearly heard if you did not insinuate that those critical of Obama are simply uninformed and assume, sarcastically, that they think Obama is "for torture." Subtlety is mightier than the insult.

[katandmoon]

49. TWO press releases! Whoa! How does he get all his other work done?

[960]

50. Don't try and conflate Conyers with Obama.

[Lilith Velkor]

53. Racism in the defense of Obama is no vice.

:patriot:

[depakid]

52. "if you are informed."

Your take would have more credibility if Rahm hadn't gone on TV and shot the bottomn out of it yesterday.

[caseymoz]

59. The best that could be said about Obama so far

is that he doesn't close the door on Bushocrats being prosecuted, as long as somebody else wants to do it. Is Mr. Holder in the building? We don't know what conversations Holder and Obama have had in private about this. I wish I could be a fly on the wall to listen to any of those.

Meanwhile, Conyers has been dangling this issue off and on for years-- 2005 I think. He's a few "show me's" late.

[bertman]

151. Caseymoz, the President cannot prosecute anyone. He is the EXECUTIVE. The prosecuting

is done by the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, the department that used to be considered above political manipulation until BushCo perfected that "workaround". So, the head of the Justice Department, the Attorney General, is the one who does the investigating, then the prosecuting.

In case you had forgotten those factoids.

And, just as a reminder, it can also be said of our President that, so far, he has:
1. Ordered an end to enhanced interrogation techniques/banned torture by U.S. agencies
2. Repealed the gag rule on family planning groups who receive federal funds, so they can now talk about abortion and contraception
3. Directed the EPA to enforce greenhouse gas emission standards
4. Begun opening up diplomatic dialogue with nations who had been on the Bush "shit list"
5. Passed a stimulus plan to begin moving our economy out of this redepressioncession
6. Begun the withdrawal process for our troops in Iraq
7. Pledged to renew efforts to decommission even more nuclear weapons

just to name a few off the top of my head.

[caseymoz]

153. Maybe I should have written:

"The very best that could be said about Obama on prosecuting the Bushocrats . . . " but I thought that would be unnecessary. The only thing I thought about the conversation between Obama and Holder is if Holder gave Obama a general idea on whether there would be prosecutions, and whether Obama tried to influence this. There's nothing wrong with the Attorney General telling the President which way to duck, as long as it doesn't get into the exact detail.

I have to correct something you look to have totally wrong.

The Justice Department is in the Executive Branch. Prosecuting is a duty of the Executive Branch. Only courts, jurors, judges and justices are the Judicial Branch. In a criminal trial, the Executive Branch shows the evidence it has to the judicial branch, who weighs it against the defendant's evidence and makes a verdict.

Even so, the President himself and his executive office should have no influence over who is prosecuted. The Attorney General can't effectively enforce the law like that.

[bertman]

157. Thank you for the clarification. I agree that the JD is part of the Executive Branch,

but as you point out in the last paragraph, it should never be influenced by the Chief Executive.

[LittleGirl]

61. thank you for posting

I'm booking marking this page.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. "Obama Bashers" isn't a great way to get a productive discussion going.

Further, I don't see how Conyers = Obama.

[jberryhill]

64. You Think Conyers Is Ever Going To Get Bush Impeached?

I've been asleep for a couple of months, anything interesting happen with Conyers' hearings?

[tomm2thumbs]

65. OMG - Sanity - here? On this issue? What to do, what to do...

K&R!!!

[veganlush]

66. what's to say this isn't just window dressing to appease people..

..like we DUer's that want to see prosecutions? Words only go so far. Conyers has been blowing smoke for a long time on a range of issues. He can't even compel testimony with subpoenas. When Clinton Had a fling while in office, which amounted to nothing that was even anybody else's business, the repugnants had no trouble impeaching him, and had democratic support! I hope something is coming but I wouldn't count on it.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Christa]

67. K & R

Remember we elected the clever guy ;)

[scentopine]

68. Don't fall for right-wing tactics and half truths to silence dissent

Don't fall for this OP nonsense. We have new puppy in Whitehouse and any criticism is going to be met with by half-truths and insults. This is politics and the poster believes he/she is on the defense team.

Where are the special prosecutors? Where is justice? The truth is we have provided amnesty for wire tapping, amnesty for torture, amnesty for wall street. In fact, Obama has trumped the AG in announcing that those who committed torture will not be prosecuted. The argument is that they followed lawyers advice. This sets dangerous precedent for executive power- where does individual responsibility start?

Politcs as usual. Obama is under heat for foot dragging on this issue. He is worried about the "morale" at CIA. Screw that. Doesn't the morale of the citizens count for anything? Is CIA they upset that they can't torture or that they might actually be held accountable for torture? Booo f'n hoooo. If there is any organization that is immune from any oversight and accountability in the recent history of USA, it is the untouchable CIA and NSA. They can literally do anything they want and never be held accountable. In fact they are holding us at ransom - prosecute us and we'll make your lives miserable. As if they aren't doing that already.

Criminal and civil investigations aren't about looking back, its about justice. Should we simply forgive all criminals and look forward instead of looking back and pressing for convictions? If you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being accused of a crime, like torture for instance, try the "we should look forward" defense on the judge.

****please keep up the pressure for investigations on wiretapping, Wall Street and torture and ignore the insults****

We should be demanding justice. That's the main thing between you as a citizen of a free nation and just another piece of meat in an oligarchy or fascist state.

From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/us/politics/21intel.html?_r=2&hp

At the same time, the administration faces pressure from abroad. Manfred Nowak, the United Nations’ chief official on torture, told an Austrian newspaper that as a party to the international Convention against Torture, the United States was required to investigate credible accusations of torture.

Others pushing for more investigation included Philip D. Zelikow, the former State Department counselor in the Bush administration. On his blog for Foreign Policy magazine and in an interview, Mr. Zelikow said it was not up to a president to rule out an inquiry into possible criminal activity. “If a Republican president tried to do this, people would be apoplectic,” he said.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., who was chief counsel to the Church Committee, the Senate panel that investigated C.I.A. abuses in the 1970s, said Mr. Obama was “courageous” to rule out prosecutions for those who followed legal advice. But he said “it’s absolutely necessary” to investigate further, “not for the purpose of setting blame but to understand how it happened.”

[merh]

69. I have less faith in Conyers than I have in this admin pursuing charges

against anyone.

Conyers investigations and hearings have had little success or impact, they are just show and flash.

When will Rove be deposed? What about Miers?

And extraordinary renditions will include Clinton's admin.

[doctor jazz]

71. Conyers is a worthless jerk and anyway he has no authority to actually do anything.

That's the job of the Justice Dep't which is run by...well, you know.
edit to add
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_cia

[salguine]

72. Is "Obama bashers" code for

"Anyone who has disagreed even slightly with anything of or by or about Obama ever"?

[Raineyb]

142. It would appear so. n/t

[Wizard777]

74. Excuse us for establishing that there will be HELL TO PAY for inaction on Bush's actions.

Even for Barack Obama. I'm sorry. But I'm always harder on Democrats than Republicans. If only because they are Democrats that should know better damn it! When you go from this is an atrocity and evil incarnate to well it's not really THAT bad. Of course people will say, :wtf: If only our country didn't have a long history of politicians saying, Now that we've got ours. FUCK YOU! We've even said this to people that fought our wars for us.

So when we have action on Bush's action. It's not really from all your butt kissing and playing along with free passes and otherwise sweep this under the rug to be ignored. It's the angry torch bearing mob standing behind you that is compelling the action.

[zulchzulu]

165. Should librarians do the job of the Fire Department?

Obama is not in the position to start investigations or prosecute ANYONE... even Bush!

It's the job of the Justice Department and the Attorney General to start and execute investigations.

By your bereft misunderstanding of the roles of governmental responsibilities, you would perhaps think librarians should do the work of the fireman or that the public school teacher should implement highway construction plans. Should cops be doctors?

You thinking I am "butt kissing" for Obama because I have knowledge of how government works is laughable. Your "angry torch bearing mob standing behind you" statement puts you in with the same knuckle-dragging asshat Teabag scatterbrains I saw last week.

Crack a book.

[Javaman]

75. meh, I'll believe it when I see it. remember pig boy has yet to testify. oh yeah, that.

meyers still hasn't shown up nor has rice. conyers has made grand pronouncements before. He's king of the finger wagging crew.

we've been sold down the river. the US as we once knew it was replaced under the guise of 9/11. Welcome to the new police state of kabuki puppetry.

read the manual. it's called 1984.

new speak works great with twitter. Only 140 characters required!!

room 101: the worst thing in the world. Winston Smith had rats. Some poor schmuck at gitmo had insects.

perpetual war. we have always been at war with eurasia.

big brother watches us all! tapping phone lines, monitoring the internet, need an ID to vote, etc.

you don't have to control the population when then willfully want to be controlled.

[TankLV]

76. Fucking "I'll send a STERN letter" Conyers?!!!!

He's just as bad as jelly bones Daschel and "I can't find anyone to apologize to fast enough" Dicky Durbin...

embarassments all...

fuck conyers and the high horses he rides in on - all talk and NO action...

the OLD man is fucking worse than useless, because he sets us up to hope, only to DO NOTHING when the times demand it...

[pam4water]

78. In what cracked universe does someone else picking up the ball Obama dropped excuse his actions?

It's not about Obama or Bush bashing, it's about getting justice and the economy fixed. Stop pretending that any criticism of Obama is a personal attack on Obama or his 'true believes'.

You live in a republic. That mean understanding what is going on picking the best course and pushing the elected official to wards it. It's not a football game. Cheer leading has no effect. I don't even think cheer leads have much effect on foot ball games. Turn of the huff and go get educated.

[zulchzulu]

98. Take a Civics class at your local community college

They are bound to mention this thing called the Justice Department. Make sure you're awake when they talk about that. Learning is fun!

[SlingBlade]

79. Obama Bashers ? OMG, Where ?

I'm shocked, Shocked I tell ya that there are rumors of Obama Bashing
right here on Democratic Underground :sarcasm:


K & R Go Get'em

[McCamy Taylor]

80. Criminal actions should be investigated by the DOJ. Congress can not prosecute.

Holder needs to appoint a special prosecutor, since the nation's Justice officials and intelligence officials are probably involved in the crime of torture.

If Obama thinks that he can maintain his "I'm a nice, bipartisan guy" image by saying we must "move on" from torture, that is his business. It is not his business to decide who gets investigated and prosecuted.

Given yesterday's revelation about the blackmail of Harmon, when I see Obama advocating a blanket amnesty for folks who tortured, I have to wonder Are former Bush officials blackmailing him, too? Is that Fitz's job in Illinois? To keep the heat on Obama by threatening to bring him and his staff into the investigation if Obama does not cover for Bush/Cheney?

[Titonwan]

86. Obama's wrong (and so are you, by proxy).

The CIA operatives that committed torture do NOT have a legal leg to stand on and Barack should know that.

Convention Against Torture -- signed by Reagan in 1988, ratified in 1994 by Senate:
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law (Article 4) . . . . The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. . . . An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Geneva Conventions, Article 146:
Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.

Charter of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, Article 8:
The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI:
ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

Your condescending attitude and insults are just typical cheerleading. Try explaining this withOUT your pom poms.

[zulchzulu]

88. Invest in a reading comprehension program, Captain Obvious

Also, I think you were condescending in your insults about me being condescending... :hi:

If you read the OP, all that you posted is pretty obvious. Maybe you missed the part where the President doesn't have to investigate... that's for the Judiciary Committee, Ethics Committee as well as the Justice Department.

Take a civics class. It can be fun.

[mortfrom]

87. Weak tea

So Obama made a campaign promise? And anyone who bashed heads into walls without authorization *could* be prosecuted? Anyone else, though, not so much. That combined with further efforts to restrict habeas corpus don't give me a real strong feeling that the President is giving a great deal of weight to, "that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator..." Your Conyers brew is weak tea indeed.

[JFN1]

89. "Obama is for torture? He wants Bush to get away with it?"

That is a pretty dirty thing to say to those of us who HEARD THE PRESIDENT AND HIS CHIEF OF STAFF SAY THEY WERE AGAINST PROSECUTION FOR TORTURE.

I don't know anyone who thinks Obama is for torture and wants Bush to get away with it - I think you owe those of us who are CONCERNED over this matter, an apology.

And I am so glad you put your faith in Congressional Committees, which, historically, have accomplished very little.

I would much rather see Mr. Holder announce an independent counsel and conduct a real investigation.

So go ahead - believe that Mr. Obama won't flip-flop again on his position on upholding the Law.

Go ahead and believe that the campaign promise to uphold the law means something, when EVERY STEP OF THE WAY Mr. Obama has stated he wants to "look forward" and not "live in the past."

I want to believe Mr. Obama - I want to believe him so badly.

But, I cannot...until I see ACTION - and not mere rhetoric...

[florida08]

90. have only seen a few true

Obama bashers here. Most that I've read are like me having voted and supported his campaign efforts who now are questioning items that he has upheld like extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretaps. Perhaps Obama may use them differently than Bush but what happens when Obama is gone?

I haven't seen anyone say that he supports the use of torture but are questioning Rahm's recent statement that even those who devised the policy should not be prosecuted. An outstanding statement for a chief of staff to say on a global broadcast. Better to say nothing or to refer to the AG's office. Obama himself stated this was a time of reflection and that nothing would be gained by spending time and energy laying blame for the past.

Having said that however I did hear that Eric Holder may not have made up his mind about it yet. We also heard from Feinstein who has requested comments regarding holding individuals accountable for detention and interrogation related activities be held in reserve until the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is able to complete its review of the conditions and interrogations of certain high value detainees.

Many of us do think there is something to be gained by holding the guily not the innocent accountable.

[scentopine]

137. Excellent points

But there is one element that merits discussion....

"Perhaps Obama may use them differently than Bush but what happens when Obama is gone?"

Not a chance. Obama has zero control over these intelligence assets. If anything NSA/CIA will be focusing hard to cherry pick information that can be used against Obama and/or his team. The CIA and NSA are sort of like Wall Street. They have been unregulated and allowed to invest in derivative instruments (e.g. torture, wiretapping). They have inflated the value of their holdings, created chaos in the processes and are now too big to fail. So, Obama is bailing them out. Bush spent 8 years stuffing these agencies with bushies, I assure you they are madder than hell now that the republican bubble has burst. It was never supposed to happen that way.

The main problem is this. There about 3 million DOD employees (enlisted & civilian). They vote. And an exponentially increasing number of them read your e-mail, web postings (just like this one), and listen to your phone calls. Its automated, of course, but they can filter on anything and clear text like this is easy to filter. On top of that are about another 3 million DOD contractors sucking at the nipples of Mother War Department who are in it for the money and couldn't give a rat's ass about morality or ethics.

So the flap about torture is about the 290 million people (or so) who don't have jack squat to do with Wall Street or CIA/NSA/DOD being completely under the control of those other 10 million for whom justice does not apply. Notice that there hasn't been any single point of protest. That's because people have seen so many pictures of police beating protesters, and the government will very likely put you on a no-fly list if you are identified in any protest against the government.

We are witnessing the birth of new age of American enterprise that really does resemble fascism. AT&T helping NSA with wiretapping and surveillance of citizens, Wall Street in charge of the treasury and fed, private contractors like CACI helped with torture, Blackwater, etc. Secret prisons, etc.

We've never seen anything like it since nations founding. Or do people really believe justice begins and ends with "Scooter" Libby?

[florida08]

149. Thank you for your wonderful

and insightful comments. The CIA and NSA are sort of like Wall Street This is something that is so obvious I have wondered why it hasn't been said before. I stated the same thing not to long ago. Lack of protests is probably because most peoples first priority is their job and retirement. Absolutely right about fascism. I think Naomi Wolf referred to it as "corporatism"..but a rose by any other name. Perhaps the right pressure will get some traction on the torture memos. Still very suspect to me that the
interrogation tapes were destroyed. It's just recently come out that the reason they waterboarded some of them fiercely so many times was to get an admission of Saddam and 9/11. Surprising..no but should be the drumbeat.

Fitzgerald really covered that investigation up IMHO. Armitage was the outer and was told to be quiet. Let's hope the flashlight will become a spotlight. We really need some purging but your're right..it's a mighty big job.

[Overseas]

91. I love my President and long for the prosecution of the torturers

After several years of horror, my longing to see the officials who promulgated torture prosecuted for their crimes is very strong. I will jump with a sad startled response when I hear someone like Rahm say the torturers will not be charged. I voted for President Obama with a strong hope that he would prosecute the war criminals who took over our government. The revocation of the Bush executive order filled me with hope, too. So I feel strong disappointment at any news that seems like we are backing away from holding the torturers and their defenders accountable. Just as I cheer any news that looks like we will prosecute them after all.

I admire many things about President Obama. I love his respect for, and skillful practice of, diplomacy. I've been delighted to see our president meet with world leaders respectfully, with strategic planning that goes far beyond brutal militarism. I am so glad his team understands that mutual cooperation doesn't have to be a "sell out"-- we can actually negotiate again.

I am certainly hoping there is a longer term strategy regarding the manner in which the torture program has been disclosed that will lead to prosecution of those who were involved, especially those who tried to justify the commission of war crimes and defiance of the Geneva Conventions.

I am very glad to see the DOJ being changed back from being the Vice President's Annex it was under Cheney and Rove, to its proper independence. That is another source of hope.

Editing to add my admiration for John Conyers. I am glad to learn about his plans to pursue the abuses of power of the Bush Cheney Gang.

[mzmolly]

94. K and

R.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted sub-thread

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

[bvar22]

111. Help me get "informed".

Conyers can "investigate" all he wants to, but can he prosecute?
I don't think so.
ALL Conyers can do is to refer his investigation to Obama's Attorney General for prosecution.

Right so far?

Help me out here, because I'm not too informed.
Didn't Rahm say yesterday that the White House will NOT be prosecuting ANY Bush officials or any Torturers who had a note from their lawyer (OLC).

How am I doing?
Its not so easy when you are not informed.

If the White House is NOT going to prosecute, then WTF good are Conyer's investigations?

There is already abundant PROOF of criminality.
It is time for Holder (Obama's AG) to appoint an Independent Prosecutor and STEP AWAY from this explosive issue.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Otherwise, Obama is inviting the perception that he is protecting Torturers and War Criminals.

[ejbr]

116. Color me confused

then what does this mean?

"Yeah, but those who devised the policy, he believes that they were, should not be prosecuted either," Emanuel said.

One should NOT infer that Obama IS for torture by Bush officials, at the very least?

[DebbieCDC]

124. Yawn, another strongly worded letter from Conyers

[zulchzulu]

136. Where do you think the testimony and other evidence goes? To a Denny's refridgerator repairman?

If you know about Google and how to use it, try looking up stuff like "Judiciary Committee" and "Justice Department". Perhaps even delve into using other words combined with these words. It's easy! And fun!

Oh wait... maybe you don't like complicated information. Well, there's always Twitter!

:crazy:

[jberryhill]

156. Yes, this will certainly top Conyers' impeachment of W...

Boy, I'll never forget the day that W had to leave the White House in shame, due to Rep. Conyers dogged efforts.

[zulchzulu]

161. So are you pissed at Feingold because he thought Bush shouldn't be impeached?

Oh wait. Damn. I'm letting out real information about what happened.

My bad.

[sui generis]

127. Obama bashers feel free to post here.

But don't fuck with the OP or he'll accuse you of smoking crack. :eyes:

[Thrill]

152. 'We're closing in on Rove'

Thats all I have to say about Conyers

[BlooInBloo]

155. I look forward to reading Conyer's next Very Sternly Worded Letter.

[zulchzulu]

159. It's a "letter"?

You have proven to be yet an another uninformed denizen. It's a "letter"?

:rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

160. Um.... yah.... right....

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=conyers+sternly+worded+letter&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Or if you prefer, there's the "strongly worded" variant:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=conyers+strongly+worded+letter&btnG=Search


I am sorry that you're the last to know.

[zulchzulu]

162. Your distaste for Feingold/Pelosi/Reid/Clinton etc. derailing Conyers is duly noted...

Oh wait... of course you didn't know that!

In your World, Conyers is like the only dude who was responsible for getting the impeachment trial on course. Trash Conyers! Yay!

:puke:

[BlooInBloo]

163. It's funny because I never said any of that.

[zulchzulu]

164. Oh...OK... so you trash Conyers like some pimple-faced punk... yet don't know the full story

Conyers is not the only guy who is supposed to bring about justice... if you figured out the complete story, you would see how Conyers' impeachment efforts were railroaded from both fellow Democrats and Republicans.

Should the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have Super Powers to override everyone else? Should the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have his investigation findings override the powers of the Senate and House leadership? Should the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee have an investigation that has findings that are above and beyond the Justice Department?

Conyers has done some very fine work. He is on MY side. He also has to deal with those that are uncooperative in giving him testimony and other information as well as people like Pelosi, Feingold, Reid and others who stopped his efforts and equally did what the Republicans were trying to do.

So trash Conyers. Have an adult drink. Puke.

[BlooInBloo]

166. His Very Sternly Worded Letters have indeed been exemplary. A true master of the literary form.