So torture and wiretapping are ok now?

[lonestarnot]

And bailouts, how many more of those are on tap?

[kid a]

1. yea...if you want to think like a four year old...

[lonestarnot]

2. OK adddd ult splain it genius.

[FrenchieCat]

3. My, what a simple world you live in!

Want a teabag?

[lonestarnot]

6. No one is saying anything different. What's the story? That was my

5 minutes of news for the day. Wiretappers getting off, tortures right next to them and banks still retaining credit swap junk still not being talked about.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Like I said, you live in a simple world.

Sounds like in your world, Dennis Kucinich could actually run on impeaching the previous administration, and get elected as President.

In my world, there is complexity....

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice. As I understand it, his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted. The details made public in these memos paint a horrifying picture and reveal how the Bush administration's lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture. The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable"-- Russ Feingold
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/russ_feingolds_reaction.php


John Dean on Hopes for Future Bush Prosecution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dpr9KxXnXk

President Obama strikes a wise balance in coming to terms with the torture of terrorism suspects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/04/16/ST2009041603954.html

[lonestarnot]

20. Well go huff and puff, but don't blow your own fucking house down mr complex.

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

21. Just wait until we get the Presidency & the Congress under Dem rule!!!1

[FrenchieCat]

24. I think I'm being quite calm.

Sorry if I'm not going with the high Drama crowd tonight.

[elleng]

58. You're doing VERY WELL, Frenchie.

For those who REALLY want to understand what this Admin has in mind, READ IT HERE!

[EFerrari]

8. Keith Olbermann lives in the same simple, clear world.

You should try it out sometime!

[Occam Bandage]

14. Sean Hannity also has a simple, clear world.

Television political talk show hosts tend to create those, because they're much easier to sell to people than reality is.

[EFerrari]

31. And that's the Faux News theory of media balance. Thanks!

As someone who has followed this story and written about it for years now, I wish you some clarity.

[Occam Bandage]

33. I'd rather not buy the form of clarity media ranthounds sell.

[Bluebear]

22. You're calling lonestarnot a teabagging Republican? Go back to your GDP cathedral.

[lonestarnot]

28. LOL and stay there!

:toast: before I spit in his eye!

[Bluebear]

69. XOXOX

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

68. I can't believe you've called lonestarnot a teabagger! You don't have a frigging clue, do you???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[leftstreet]

4. Maybe the plan is to Waterboard the Bankers?

:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

29. Now there's a plan!

;)

[billyoc]

5. You'll know the administration sycophants by their accusing you of being a freeper/teabagger.

Make a list.

[lonestarnot]

9. LOL

To tired for lists, just trying to make sense of the bullshit I'm hearing. Total fucking bullshit I'm hearing is not making me one bit happy. Listening to Prof. Turley on Rachel now and am about to throw something through the tv unless he makes some sense of it.

[EFerrari]

7. What an awful day.

:(

[lonestarnot]

10. Fucking A it's getting worse and I didn't think it could!

:(

[EFerrari]

25. I'm afraid this decision not to prosecute torturers

has just made it harder to prosecute anyone for torture. I'm not a lawyer but, without discovery of the actual, physical acts, without the cooperation of these now protected people, how can anyone be prosecuted?

My head hurts. I hope I'm wrong as possible. :(

[lonestarnot]

34. Setting a precedent for torturers world wide and I hope we're both wrong!

The move forward statement is not something the country is willing to do. I'm sure of it. This is a wrong that must be righted.

[EFerrari]

36. Right now the Obama admin problem is, do we go for it or do

we let Spain/someone else go for it? Both of these choices are horrible politically.

I hate George Bush for putting this cr@p into this presidency and I don't feel very kindly to Nancy Pelosi either. :grr:

[Occam Bandage]

39. There's a third option, that doesn't involve political horror:

We continue to release documents to test public support as public demand for those documents overrides internal fear of morale loss inherent in releasing those documents. If the public anger over the continued revelation of Bush wrongdoing reaches the point where prosecution will not be seen as a witch hunt, then prosecute. If not, don't.

[EFerrari]

43. As Obama and Holder well know, they are bound by the law of the land

to prosecute torture. There is no "polling" about it. That's the law.

[Occam Bandage]

49. Of course they're not.

The Constitution does not require anyone to launch prosecutions whenever some people suspect wrongdoing. The Executive Branch has complete discretion over when to launch prosecutions and when to not.

(And, I might add, treaties are only valid insofar as they do not interfere with the Constitutional/statutory powers of the government)

[EFerrari]

64. Wrong again. When we signed onto Geneva, it became law.

[lonestarnot]

47. The pics or videos have been held for years. I read on another thread, a judge has ordered them to

be released. RepiglislugCONS will salivate to watch that disgusting excuse for human being crap. The left has been screaming for years, but 3.5 to go.

[Occam Bandage]

51. The pics of torture are not exactly relevent to whether Bush acted criminally.

At this point there is an exceedingly strong case that somebody was tortured by somebody. The problem is linking Bush clearly, irrefutably, and criminally. "He was President and the buck stops there" doesn't work.

[EFerrari]

53. We have both Bush and Cheney admitting to torture on video.

That's not even an issue.

[Occam Bandage]

55. So what? That only proves that they were aware that waterboarding was occurring.

That isn't necessarily criminal. It's entirely possible (however unlikely) that it was ordered illegally and without authorization by, say, John Yoo, who then concocted some legal justifications he provided to the President and Vice President which deluded them into believing that waterboarding did not amount to torture.

[EFerrari]

56. Wrong. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

60. Do you remember the Plame affair?

It was something as simple as Cheney leaking out one agent's name, and yet we have a web of dozens of people, the important links (pictured) all carefully set up to go through one fall man capable of derailing the entire investigation.

Do you really think that the case for the systematic torture of hundreds of people across multiple agencies in multiple countries is going to be so much simpler that Cheney saying "waterboarding has been used" represents the only line of causality any investigation would uncover?

[EFerrari]

65. Plame has nothing to do with this. As soon as a signer to Geneva

has evidence of torture, they must open an investigation. That's the law.

[tkmorris]

62. Actually I think they are

We need more than evidence as you well know, we need an angry public DEMANDING that someone be held accountable. Those pictures and video would serve that purpose very well.

[Occam Bandage]

63. You're right that they'd be useful for stoking public opinion,

which is absolutely necessary for any sort of trial of Bush to occur.

[EFerrari]

52. They don't really have any choice. The Geneva torture convention says

that as soon as you are aware of torture, you have to prosecute or you are also committing a crime. UN agreement says the same thing.

So, the administration is wiggling around trying to find the best solution for themselves. Which is, I guess, what any admin would do.

But, in asserting that the hands n guys were just going by legal direction from DoJ, I'm afraid that the prosecution of torture has been cut off at the knees. Maybe a legal type DUer can check in on that.

[Occam Bandage]

54. And that is entirely nonbinding

as the Constitution provides a handy "get-out-of-international-obligation-free" clause in Article VI: "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[EFerrari]

57. Wrong. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

61. You're right. The black-letter text of the Constitution is wrong. nt

[Occam Bandage]

35. So you aren't a lawyer,

and yet have given yourself a headache because you think your uneducated opinion of a non-legal event is somehow legally binding. DU is full of strange sorts.

[EFerrari]

38. That's called "critical thinking". You might try it some time. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

42. I do. Part of that isn't holding the degree of arrogance

that leads one to believe "I cannot think of a way that would make this work, so nobody can, especially not the people whose job and training it is to make this work." It's like someone watching a Major League pitcher tossing warmups, and saying, "I couldn't hit a 94-mph fastball, so obviously nobody can. What kind of terrible sport is it when nobody can hit the ball the pitcher throws? I'm so disappointed in this sport!"

As for your question? Commission of a crime is still illegal. The decision to not prosecute a crime is in no way equal to the declaration that the crime did not occur.

[EFerrari]

45. Oh, please. Why don't you just say, sit back little lady and let a real man do the job.

That's hilarious. lol

And it's not up to Obama, no matter the rhetoric, to prosecute torture or not. Torture is illegal in this country. He and his administration are bound by law to prosecute. That's it.

[Occam Bandage]

50. Because that would be dumb. Why don't you just say, plaid pants match striped shirts?

Because that would be dumb.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Yes, it was terrible how Obama totally did exactly what everyone here demanded he do yesterday

and release the memos, uncensored, in an act of unprecedented transparency.

[kas125]

19. He released ALL the memos? I better tell the ACLU

because they are deluded enough to think they only released FOUR of them...

[EFerrari]

23. That mendacity doesn't even merit a response. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

37. Not mendacity. Perspective.

Calling the day Obama released the torture memos "terrible" because Obama isn't going to order the DOJ to prosecute people who accepted the DOJ's interpretation of the law, on the other hand...

[EFerrari]

40. This is the day Obama said he isn't going to prosecuted torturers.

Your "perspective" is bullshit and I'm so sorry, I don't need any today.

[Occam Bandage]

44. You mean he isn't going to prosecute some people who accepted

the definition of torture provided by the CIA and the Department of Justice, who exercised due diligence in determining whether their actions were lawful or not, and who acted on reliance of the legal protections offered by the Department responsible for their legal oversight.

That has nothing to do with the people who are actually guilty.

[EFerrari]

48. No, I mean exactly what I said. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

11. Perhaps the 250k tea baggers will protest illegal domestic wire tapping?

Torture?

Oh, I know, they'll say this is impeachment-worthy.

[lonestarnot]

15. Oh fuck those lame motherfuckers. But I can't figure out why President Obama appears to be lame on

these issues. He's a constifuckingtutional scholar for fuck sakes. Just fucking bizarre!

[Occam Bandage]

18. Shocking and remote possibility:

A constifuckingtutional scholar is aware of his constifuckingtutional duties, and is capable of distinguishing his duties from your revulsion at previous administrations for their breaches of their constifuckingtutional duties.

[lonestarnot]

27. Touche'. Why would he let him get away with this bullshit then?

[Occam Bandage]

32. Who? Bush?

First, because that's not related to Obama's Constitutional duties, and second, because there's still 3.5 years left in Obama's first term, and we're still sorting through what Bush did and didn't do.

[lonestarnot]

41. Bushitler, Dickhead and the CIA, Porter house steak, you know the players.

3.5 years before first appeal filed, discovery could take 3.5 years, why wait another day?

[ColbertWatcher]

26. I think he knows/sees something we haven't grasped yet.

I don't mean to make it sound like an insult, but I'm almost certain there's some semantic minutia we're not seeing/getting.

[lonestarnot]

30. I know you would not intentionally try to insult me CW, but what in the hell could it be?

[ColbertWatcher]

59. Don't know.

But it won't be obvious to the layman, and the answer won't come right away.

It took the man 5 months to announce that his family adopted a dog.

He's very deliberate chess player.

[Occam Bandage]

12. No. Were you paying attention? nt

[elleng]

67. Thanks for your work on this, Occ.

Enabled me to pass on it tonight!

[d_b]

17. you just wait

wait until we get control of the congress and the white house--Repube heads are gonna roll!

[dieselrevolver]

46. totally understand

the OP's sentiment. I am extremely disappointed about the "moving forward and not looking back" aspect, but think President Obama can be convinced to seek prosecution of those responsible. Holder's opinion on the matter is also very important.

However, this is a complex matter and we need to be patient. This is not going away and we need to keep pressure on our elected officials to support the investigation.

[bridgit]

66. Yes! You presumably voted for it so deal with it already...

:kick: