More than Nuremberg: Update: Rahm Says "No Prosecutions"

[kpete]

Source: Daily Kos

More than Nuremberg: Update: Rahm Says "No Prosecutions"
by Valtin

More than Nuremberg: Update: Rahm Says "No Prosecutions" Sat Apr 18, 2009 at 09:01:42 PM PDT

UPDATE: This is important, and I'm essentially using this diary to make the community aware. This morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said the White House did not support prosecuting -- not only CIA officers who tortured, believing in "good faith" what they were doing was legal -- but would also not support the prosecution of "those who devised the (interrogations/torture) policy." This is clearest statement yet from the Obama White House of their (non-)intentions, and it's an outrage. -- Here's the link to the video,

ABC: Emanuel: NO PROSECUTION OF BUSH OFFICIALS
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=7373557

Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/19/721803/-More-than-Nuremberg:-Update:-Rahm-Says-No-Prosecutions

[Taverner]

1. Well, then my $$ from here on out shall go to the ACLU

If you want to see prosecutions, make sure the ACLU can bring them about

[jwirr]

8. I think you are totally correct. The lawsuits against these criminals

will come from other sources: Congress, foreign governments or we the people represented by groups like the ACLU. Maybe from all three. By releasing the memos and other info we will be asking for President Obama is doing his part. Now it is up to us.

[Taverner]

43. Agreed

[HowHasItComeToThis]

157. PLEASE GET THEM

THEY ARE A CANCER

[bvar22]

245. Obama has already intervened on behalf of the War Criminals...

...and STOPPED at least 2 lawsuits using the old Bush dodge of "Executive Privilege & State Secrets".

Dream On.

[RandomThoughts]

2. I think if there were crimes, there should be prosecutions.

I think alot of Americans do. I think if there are crimes their should be prosecutions because they were crimes. I think most people agree with that. However he might be stalling for time, to get the other Policies through first though.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

161. The deal.

Some GodDamn Body better be prosecuted. Period. I'd like to know Who in that White House is deciding what emails the president reads.

Because obviously he hasn't been given one of my dozen or so contacts. I have lost nearly everything that matters in my life. For almost the entire Bush presidency I lived in fear. I have been monitored in ways that are not only illegal but violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I have been threatened, my mother has been terrorized, (I have proof) I have been terrorized, I have been nearly destroyed physically, emotionally, and spiritually, And I have been tortured.

People on DU don't have to believe me. I am not asking you to. But this bullshit from this administration and their unwillingness to prosecute and jail the worst offenders of our constitution and the rule of law ever, is immoral.


I continue to be tortured - see the statement by Susan Crawford - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html

"We tortured Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.


. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.


There are things I could tell you that would sicken every one of you about the things that have been done to me physically and by the use of psychological manipulation that even GITMO prisoners have not endured. Even in the worse offenses that we have read about in the Red Cross Report and the Torture Memos, these people have had down time. That has not been the case in my life.


If there are people here that want to believe or think I'm just a mental case and should be treated as one, I invite you to face me not on this impersonal message board but in person - face to face.


Don't expect me to to give you reasons or details of what, when, where, and why this has happened to me. That too would blow you away, but the cowards that do know and have done nothing would fill a small town. Names of some all here would recognize.

[Hydra]

188. As someone who has seen the dirty laundry

I sympathize, and know you aren't the only one. We continue to be shouted down in favor of people's hopes that this will all go away.

They're dreaming. The Gov't does what it wants. No oversight, no accountability, no rules.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

210. Thank you Hydra

[Christa]

195. I believe you

and my heart is breaking for you, for all the people who were used, abused and hurt, maimed, destroyed, injured and killed.

I feel I am lost in the Twilight Zone. :cry:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

211. Thank you Christa

you are the only person who has ever said, I believe you.

[Christa]

219. I am sure many more believe you

We so often neglect to comfort each other with kind words

:hug:

[pberq]

214. Sorry to hear what happened to you

And, yes, somebody better be prosecuted.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

217. thank you pberq

[derby378]

3. The fix is in

It's just another incidence of DLC insiders turning Obama against the grassroots who put him in office. What a waste.

[jefferson_dem]

12. The American people put Obama into office.

Thank you.

[derby378]

17. Some still claim the American people put George W. Bush in office

There was a vote held. Obama got the first actual majority since 1988. If Obama didn't motive the Democratic grassroots, however, that never would have happened.

So that means we've got a few things to say about how Obama's done things in DC...

[conscious evolution]

226. Starting to look like Diebold

put both of them in office.

[puebloknot]

96. The American people put Obama into office to protect and defend ...

...no, make that *restore*... the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The American people can put Obama out of office ... if he doesn't do what is right. Will they? "They" will get back to us when they're losing their house and their car, have had a stroke, can't get admitted to a decent hospital, and are losing weight, involuntarily.

The recent election was a great Roman Circus, one which lifted my spirits temporarily. My father, who was a WWII Veteran (Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, etc.) taught me a valuable lesson when I was 12. "Just because you see it in print in a newspaper doesn't mean it's true."

Just because Obama was (apparently) swept into office by a tired (of fascism) populace, just because he's handsome and charismatic and intellligent, just because he is restoring our reputation in the world and reaching out to other countries, just because he speaks to We the People in soothing tones, does not mean that he is above the law. What he condones he owns.

More to the point, where is the Congress in all this? Obama is not a king!

[TTUBatfan2008]

186. Regarding the end of your post...

GWB did an executive order during his second term that allows the POTUS to declare martial law at any point, effectively making the POTUS a dictator.

As for Obama and torture, this is small stuff compared to the robbery by the banking oligarchs. They own the media, the ability to print money with interest automatically tacked on against the American people (Federal Reserve), and the politicians (including Obama).

[puebloknot]

238. I'm depressingly aware of this. I just don't want to settle for ...

... "Better than Bush." I want the whole enchilada, the total restoration of constitutional law.

But all that you've alluded to will require more than a ballot box to restore our democratic republic. And too many with power of one sort or another are a part of the robbery to which you refer.

[mmonk]

199. .

“We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power.

"I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President."



Signed by then Senator Obama as presidential candidate Oct. 02, 2007.

[puebloknot]

97. If Obama is that easily turned, then we've elected a "pig in a poke." nt

[laststeamtrain]

4. K & R--It is an outrage.

And all kinds of wrong; legal, moral, what-have-you.

[MissDeeds]

115. All kinds of wrong indeed

But who will stand up and demand that "change" happen? And who will listen? I am so freaking sick of the empty rhetoric and the talk that leads us in one direction, but is followed by actions that take the other direction.

Edit to add K&R

[Stuart G]

5. K and R

[liberalmuse]

6. I don't think that is Constitutional.

The Executive Branch is not the branch that decides whether or not there will be prosecution of war criminals or torturers. It looks like we are going to have to put some pressure on Congress and the White House.

[jefferson_dem]

14. In the US Courts, it is ultimately the Justice Dept. that decides which cases will be pursued.

Whether people agree or disagree with the judgment, there is no separation of powers issue here.

[Supersedeas]

75. Holder is supposed to enforce the laws of the land; not be the President's extra-WH counsel

A Nation of Cowards waits for some pronouncement from the Attorney General.

[Demeter]

7. Since I First Heard of Rahm I Have Loathed Him

He was always on the wrong side of every issue. I see his record is intact, even though he is the Gatekeeper for the Prez. I still loathe him, BTW.

[diamidue]

36. Me, too. He sure doesn't work for the American people...n/t

[Baby Snooks]

37. No, he doesn't...

He works for the Clintons. Connect the dots people...

?

[MasonJar]

74. That is absurd. He works for Obama.

[Individualist]

79. It isn't hard to connect the dots

considering the fact he's a known DLC member.

[Freddie Stubbs]

222. A lot of Obama apointees are DLC members

Connect those dots.

[bvar22]

202. He doesn't exactly work for the Clintons.

He works for the same people the Clintons work for.
So does Obama.

Rahm is just the thug enforcer.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

102. He is speaking for the president

[diamidue]

134. or vice versa

I'm not so sure who is controlling who. I find it hard to believe that Obama picked Rahm and Biden. I think it more likely that they were picked for him - to keep him on the prescribed path. I no longer believe that Presidents have the power or control we have been led to believe they have.

[leftynyc]

206. Are you calling Pres Obama

a toady? For whom?

[Old Codger]

9. Change for sure

Changed the names and faces but not the policies, Obama is headed down the same path of normal politics as usual.. Not sorry I voted for him but will be looking at others next election. we gave him a mandate to make the changes and he gives us the bird.

[DaLittle Kitty]

Rahm PersonallY Deleted John Russell From DCCC Supported Candidates In 2006!

Rahm is a c*ckS*cking piece of excrement of the first order and should be keelhauled right back to his home country where he belongs!!:puke:

[inna]

118. what in the world are you talking about?? his home country is the U.S.

there are unsupported rumors that he has a dual Israeli citizenship, but that does not change the fact that his home country is the U.S., he was born, raised and has lived here most of his life.

[amandabeech]

225. However, during the First Gulf War, he went to Israel to serve as a civilian volunteer in Israel's

armed forces. He did nothing to help the U.S. Rahm's Wiki discusses this period of his life briefly.

Rahm was born in Chicago, grew up in that great city and until recently at least, was raising his family there. By all accounts, he likes the U.S.

However, when the U.S. went to war, he went to Israel.

I've had the pleasure of knowing and working with many Jewish Americans who say that they like the U.S. and are thankful that the U.S. offered sanctuary to their ancestors.

Nonetheless, many of those same U.S. citizens say that their hearts belong to Israel or that Israel is number one with them.

This is a free country and I appreciate their honesty. However, I sometimes wonder if citizens and permanent residents whose first country is not the U.S. should consider declining high level government positions due to possible conflict of loyalties.

I hope that Rahm had a serious conversation with himself on this topic before he ran for the House of Representatives and once again before he accept the position of Pres. Obama's chief of staff.

[leftynyc]

207. He's a US citizen

and you're a fucking idiot.

[Kitsune]

10. Once again I wonder why we even bother.

I feel like the best we can hope for anymore is for the constitution to die a slow, lingering death instead of being directly assaulted.

[cascadiance]

11. We need to get the Rahm-per Room out of the White House...

Obama, stop listening to this corporate elite serving shill!

[Mithreal]

22. Don't kid yourself, he represents the President and is a buffer for bad decisions. nt

[rateyes]

13. Rahm is probably complicit. There are Dems who could go down

for this, IMO. Too bad politics still gets bigger play than justice in this country.

It's pathetic.

[Kitsune]

16. If there are Dems that could go down for it, they should.

Party affiliation is no excuse.

[wordpix]

52. Possible Dems were in on these decisions, although I doubt they were giving the go ahead

on the explicit torture routines.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. The look and feel of change that is just more of the same.

[RainDog]

18. They haven't learned a thing since Iran-Contra

we got all the abuses of the Bush Jr. administration from Poindexter and the rest. Ollie North goes on tv with his own show and trashes the opposition. Reagan is canonized.

the torturers are already out saying Obama is making us less safe. they are craven opportunists and will use anything that happens to blame Obama - and what do we, people of this nation who voted for Obama BECAUSE he pledged to uphold the constitution get for our belief that he wasn't lying when he said those words?

we get shat on.

thanks, democrats.

fuck you, Emanuel. how would you have felt if the rest of the world told the Jews to forget about any justice for the Holocaust? that's what you just told every American who voted to stop the abuses of the Bush administration.

the political and business class is destroying this nation.

[Lena inRI]

30. Emanuel trashes Holocaust remembrance history. . .

"Emanuel. how would you have felt if the rest of the world told the Jews to forget about any justice for the Holocaust? that's what you just told every American who voted to stop the abuses of the Bush administration."

I agree with you 100%, RainDog.

I will NEVER understand how any Jewish descendant, such as Rahm Emanuel, can turn away from this Gitmo torture evidence.

I spent 33 years teaching the message of Elie Wiesel on the importance of remembering Holocaust history so future generations will never repeat the inhumanity perpetrated on the Jewish people.

What an empty shell you are, Mr. Emachiavelli.

Where's Elie Wiesel now? Wish he'd bend this Rahm's ear but good.

Help us Mr. Wiesel. . .for remembrance sake!



http://www.eliewieselfoundation.org/


:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:

[liberation]

91. I think Mr. Wiesel may be too busy trying to recoup his retirement funds...

I read somewhere he lost his family's retirement on Maddoff's

[puebloknot]

99. If true, that is tragic for Elie Wiesel. I am not Jewish. I greatly admire the man. nt

[justabob]

105. not just retirement.... his foundation was wiped out too nt

[leftynyc]

208. Rahm Emmanuel

works for the President. He is implementing Pres Obama's agenda. You have a beef - take it up with the man in charge.

[Lena inRI]

218. I will. . .

. . .when President Obama actually SAYS what Emanuel PURPORTS, in a convoluted, disjointed manner, what he said=no Bush admin will be prosecuted for Gitmo torture.

Meanwhile, what's keeping Emanuel from advising the "man in charge" from his Jewish consciousness of the Holocaust remembrance history ?

Again, I implore Elie Wiesel to counsel Emanuel. . .and Obama.

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

[leftynyc]

227. I have no doubt

that Pres Obama is well aware of whatever COS Emanuel's feelings on this matter are. I understand both sides of this very complex issue and I'm not really sure what's in the best interest of the country. Meanwhile I'm watching people on this board treat the Pres like he's Emanuel's puppet and it's pissing me off.

[jtrockville]

58. The criminals learned from Iran-contra: how to get away with it.

[tnlefty]

94. Some of them (Cheney and Rummie) learned how to get away with

abuse of power in the Nixon era. And they took it to a much higher level. Bastards.

[jtrockville]

236. Prepare for an even higher level next time,

if they get away with it this time.

[Babel_17]

86. The lesson of Iran-Contra, yes.

It's more expensive to not go after them. This cabal just bides its time and then gets back in.

[sojourner]

191. Oh they learned a thing or two alright --- that they can do what they want and get away with it!

[iandhr]

19. This is expected

I am sorry to put it so bluntly who ever expected prosecutions from this administration is either native or stupid

[RainDog]

21. I'm native.

I know it's a long shot to think that democrats will ever grow the SPINE to hold Republicans (and Democrats, most likely) responsible for their crimes.

However, it was a long shot for a black man to win the White House.

Sometimes things happen that are for the good, even when the powerful continue to push for the bad.

I have given up on the democrats now. My vote is wasted when it goes to promote policies like these - or the Wall Street bailout, for that matter.

I wish I could live in a democracy.

[tavalon]

176. Nope, hopeful

[GreenTea]

20. Disgusting & outrageous - we need to make our voices heard!

"prosecution of Bush attorneys, as well as Bush, Cheney and the rest, is a critical part of not just imposing accountability on those who approved and carried out torture in the name of the American people, but in dismantling a legal framework that could lead to more torture in the future.

'This Was an Assault on the Law Itself'

Members of the legal and human rights community are currently grappling with the question of how to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes. In a recent cover story of Harper's Magazine, human rights legal scholar Scott Horton lays out the rationale for pursuing the crimes of the Bush administration. The good news is there is plenty of historical precedent for going after government torturers in the United States. The bad news is that they have been uneven, at best. From an Army captain who was court-martialed for imposing the "water cure" on Filipinos during the Spanish-American War ("He was forced to pay a $50 fine") to Japanese military officials tried for war crimes (including waterboarding) after World War II -- some of whom were sentenced to death, the severity of the sanction has depended on who is meting it out.

[Metta]

23. They have ceded the moral high ground and can no longer claim it.

Happy karma. Plus, it's against our and international law. How's that going to play in happyland?

[benld74]

24. IF this comes to pass, it will only fuel the GOP,,,

they will then crow, IF the Bush Administration was guilty, they would have been prosecuted. This is just ANOTHER attempt by the far left lunatics to pin something on this administation.

[EFerrari]

39. Far left lunatics like the UN and the ACLU?

[tavalon]

177. Thank you

Don't you get a bit tired of being portrayed as the loony left as a way of marginalizing us? It's just a dumb schoolyard game.

[RainDog]

42. rule of law is now considered far left?

amazing how low down and deep into the gutter the trash who are in DC have taken this nation.

[Hydra]

190. Look at the bright side

Since the Right and center have gleefully ceded rule of law to us, they can no longer claim any sort of moral high ground, beyond "protecting the people(with money)."

[williesgirl]

25. If this is true and Obama will not allow prosecutions at the highest level, I'm no longer a Democrat

Period. End of discussion. I can't tell you how outraged and sick I am at the moment. We'd better start thinking about forming our own progessive party NOW while we still have a little time before the 2010 and 2012 elections. I will never vote for a Democratic candidate for President again if this indeed happens. That makes us no better than asshole Bush. rec'd

[Mithreal]

29. Let's make sure the story is true. nt

[Baby Snooks]

40. True?

He said it. People watching it heard him. It's also on tape. Next someone will ask if maybe he was misquoted. On tape?

I am so appalled by people blindly supporting someone simply because they have a (D) next to their name. This country is a mess already because of people blindly supporting someone simply because they had a (R) next to their name. Although honestly at this point I don't see much difference between the (D) and the (R). Not in the White House anyway.

?

They are just one big happy family.

[Mithreal]

41. True, meaning, if Rahm is telling the truth or floating the idea for some political purpose. nt

[rucky]

137. If he's not speaking for the Administration, he should be fired as Chief of Staff.

[Mithreal]

158. Rahm can say what the President is unwilling to say. nt

[golda_2003]

47. I Wanted To Post Something Original

but, this says it for me:

"I am so appalled by people blindly supporting someone simply because they have a (D) next to their name."


i guess, we don't need a new Prez as much as we may need a regime change - 3rd world countries wipe the slate clean an re-elect people who saw what happened to the last ones

does it work? i'm not sure - but, i'd like to see most of our elected officals fired and see what we get with new ones that are afraid of being fired

no one gets fired anymore - voting them out just means they have to plan to get all their dirt done within a timeframe

[Mithreal]

48. They are all afraid of being fired

that's the argument for politicians taking money from whoever has a hand out and providing an ear for the largest donors' concerns.

Or you could just argue for term limits, but like you said, bad ones can still get dirt done in a short timeframe.

Or the ones who are fired just need to make sure they do their master's bidding so lucrative employment opportunities arise after they leave office.

I think we need more average people and fewer millionaires in public office. For that we need caps on election spending and publicly funded elections.

Oh, welcome to DU : )

[golda_2003]

59. Thanks for the welcome

you just made me realize that the fired ones just become lobbyists or get hired by a network

if firing doesn't work - maybe firing squad?

or, sent to China?

[Mithreal]

81. Don't hate a player, hate the game, right?

Our way of electing representatives enables and encourages all sorts of mischief. There are some solutions that are better than others though and there are not yet enough of us demanding change for the better.

[readmoreoften]

125. You got that one right.

It has little to do with the players. It's the game that's the problem.

[tomp]

215. without players there is no game.

how about we demand true partiotism and not gamesmanship from our elected officials? the "game" we speak of is the government of the united states of america. the "players" have changed the game, they are not innocents. if you can't get the players, you can't change the game.

[jefferson_dem]

31. Bye.

We all have our issues...but anyone who thinks Obama is not better than Boosh is not living in a reality-based world.

[Mithreal]

33. I think you misread, the comment said we are no better than Bush

not that Obama was no better than Bush. I understand the sentiment that if we do not prosecute these crimes we are sanctioning them and future atrocities.

[diamidue]

38. Anyone who thinks that excusing torture is ok

is not living in a reality-based world.

[Baby Snooks]

72. He's worse...

Obama is worse than Bush. Bush promised us nothing. Obama did.

[Mari333]

35. i belong to this one

http://www.pdamerica.org/

progressive democrats

[bvar22]

203. Oh, you're with THOSE looneys.

The "Fringe", far Left wackos.
The ones who have been shut out of the Obama administration.

You must believe in all that fringe stuff like Single Payer HealthCare, Rule of Law/Prosecuting War Crimes, really stopping the WARS in the Middle East, cutting Military Spending, Equal Rights & Equal Protections for everybody, Pro-LABOR, really regulating BIG Corporations....all that looney stuff.

Good Luck.
You don't have a place in today's NEW Democratic Party.

[pleah]

26. K&R

:puke:

[Emillereid]

27. Then I think lawyers for defendants accused of crimes should plead that "it is time to

look forward and not seek retribution, etc." There really should be one set of standards and if the high and mighty can flagrantly violate the laws and not be investigated or prosecuted, then some dumbass thief or murderer or what have you, should be able to argue that we should let go of the past and all look forward with the promise that he will sin no more.

What a crock!

[Wizard777]

28. Time to shut down the courts! If we can't prosecute them we can't prosecute anyone.

We're all above the law now.

[tigereye]

136. I think American laws are what prevent certain types of prosecutions from

taking place, from what a friend who studies the law has told me.


The ignorance of the actual legal process, in this thread, is simply astonishing. At least Obama is willing to put the information out there, to get it into the light of day, to actually follow the legal principles that America is seen to stand for, unlike his predecessor, who simply permitted all these atrocities to continue, with NO sense that what had occurred was totally illegal and reprehensible.

[NoSheep]

145. This is the only post I can actually relate to and agree with in this thread.

[tigereye]

229. so obviously we must a.) moderates or b) DLC stooges...

:rofl:

[NoSheep]

234. I'm not sure I understand your reply. I was agreeing with you...

what did I miss?

[tigereye]

237. no, I was being facetious as to the rest of the thread

At times having certain more "moderate" positions (what I would call reasoned responses) around here can earn one certain monikers.


Don't mind me, I was a moderator during the Hillary Wars... :D

[NoSheep]

239. Ahhhh. Bach.

(if you need ME to explain, I will) :D

[tigereye]

242. yeah, I think I do!

:D

[NoSheep]

243. Here goes...

On M*A*S*H, there was an episode where Hawkeye and BJ, I guess, were trying to prepare Radar to go on a date.

They were giving him some pointers and Radar said "What will we talk about?" And the guys answered: "Well, just act like you know what she's talking about. If she mentions classical music or something ...just say 'Ah, Bach' and nod affirmatively like you understand."

So Radar goes on the date and everytime the girl brings up a topic of discussion he says "Ah, Bach".

Poor thing. I feel like that sometimes!

[tigereye]

244. that's funny!

Males and females often seem to have very different types of conversational perspectives. My husband and I joke about that all the time. After many years together, there are times that he still doesn't know what I'm talking about! :rofl:

[NoSheep]

248. HA! I know what you mean by that...

Nice chatting with you, tigereye.

:pals:

[bvar22]

204. A "friend" who studies law told you that! LOL.

Tell him that it is the Executive Branch's (Obama and Holder) DUTY and LEGAL OBLIGATION to PROSECUTE Torture and other War Crimes.
It is a VIOLATION of at least 4 treaties to NOT prosecute.
Obama does NOT have the choice to sweep this under the rug.

I stand with the ACLU in calling for Holder (Obama's AG) to immediately appoint an Independent Prosecutor to Investigate and Prosecute ALL (Military, Civilian, Contractor, CIA) who have been involved in TORTURE.

There is NO SUCH THING as Torturing "in Good Faith".

[tigereye]

228. I don't disagree with you about an independent prosecutor, and my point

was that a lot of folks complaining here don't seem to understand the law. (and I, not being a lawyer) make no claim to.)


Hopefully some folks here who are lawyers will come along and explain.

[bvar22]

233. These guys are lawyers:

[Solly Mack]

32. ...

...

I am biting my tongue, admonishing my fingers, and struggling with my mouth












I can't resist. I can't wait to hear the spin on this

[AzDar]

34. Craven and unacceptable.

:grr:

[TheWatcher]

44. SUSAN BOYLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

[flyarm]

90. the dog book coming to a book store soon..

it was ready to be published before the dog was bought or delivered!!..and they held it back until the Obama's got the dog and they had the name..it was ready for publication..yes that is a fact....only thing missing was the dog and the name of the dog..just so you know this is the next distraction coming soon..to a Tv and bookstore near you!!

but of course this is all we should be talking about here..right?? or we become a "douchbag" or some such lovely name.. take you pick on the name....ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



we are a nation of no laws..and our children and our children's children will pay the price for these injustices..we may have short memories , but people's throughout the world do not.

Justice Louis D.Brandeis

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;"

[glitch]

45. This sure as hell better be rope a dope.

And if that is the case Rahm is the perfect stooge for it.

[edc]

46. Tringulation

The same DLC country club ass kissers who have kept the Democrats out of the White House for 16 of the of the last 24 years and the Republicans in control of Congress for 16 of the last 18 years buy channeling Ronald Reagan are alive and well. What was new this time around was their electioneering masquerade as populists. It won't work next time.

[Snazzy]

49. transcript

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=7373578&page=1

Relevant section:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Final quick question. The president has ruled out prosecutions for CIA officials who believed they were following the law. Does he believe that the officials who devised the policies should be immune from prosecution?

EMANUEL: What he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote, and I would just take a step back. He came up with this and he worked on this for about four weeks, wrote that statement Wednesday night, after he made his decision, and dictated what he wanted to see. And Thursday morning, I saw him in the office, he was still editing it.

He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided. They shouldn't be prosecuted.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What about those who devised policy?

EMANUEL: Yes, but those who devised policy, he believes that they were -- should not be prosecuted either, and that's not the place that we go -- as he said in that letter, and I would really recommend people look at the full statement -- not the letter, the statement -- in that second paragraph, "this is not a time for retribution." It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back and any sense of anger and retribution.

We have a lot to do to protect America. What people need to know, this practice and technique, we don't use anymore. He banned it.

[Emillereid]

53. As I said above, defense attorneys defending all criminals should start using the same reasoning -

no looking back, no retribution, etc. Imagine a thief saying to a judge, "Your honor, I know now that it was the wrong thing to do, but we need to look forward and not seek retribution. I promise I won't steal ever again."

We are a nation of laws and Obama swore to uphold the constitution - he shouldn't have the right to make this decision.

[Mark Twain Girl]

54. "It's not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back": ie defending them as above the law

Is this a criminal defense now? "I'm sorry, your honor, but let's not use our energy and look back"?

[dmr]

78. Holding those accountable is not retribution, it's called JUSTICE

Obama's not stupid and knows the difference. Problem is if the rule of law, and if the system of justice is not played out, this will be sending our country further down an unrecoverable rabbit hole the next time there's another power grab, i.e. Coup 2000.

If this is more DLC triangulation bullshit, then our country doesn't have much of a chance for a long future.

[Zhade]

164. WHEN THE FUCK DID FOLLOWING THE LAW BECOME "RETRIBUTION"?

NT!

[TacticalPeek]

50. At the Nuremberg trials, Nazi judges were prosecuted for the same sort of evil.

The Nuremberg Trials: The Justice Trial

United States of America v. Alstötter et al.
("The Justice Case") 3 T.W.C. 1 (1948), 6 L.R.T.W.C. 1 (1948), 14 Ann. Dig. 278 (1948).

The Justice Trial is one of the most interesting of the Nuremberg trials. The trial of sixteen defendants, members of the Reich Ministry of Justice or People's and Special Courts, raised the issue of what responsibility judges might have for enforcing grossly unjust--but arguably binding--laws.

...

In order to prove an individual defendant guilty, prosecutors had to show that the defendant consciously furthered these human rights abuses.

...

Schlegelberger pointed out that he did not join the Nazis until 1938, and then only because he was ordered to do so by Hitler. Schlegelberger claimed to have harbored no ill-will toward the Jews. His personal physician, in fact, was Jewish. In his defense, he also stressed that he resisted the proposal that sent "half Jews" to concentration camps. Schlegelberger suggested giving "half Jews" a choice between sterilization and evacuation. He also argued that he continued to serve as long as he did because "if I had resigned, a worse man would have taken by place." Indeed, once Schlegelberger did resign, brutality increased.

In its decision, the Justice trial tribunal considered what it called Schlegelberger's "hesitant injustices." The tribunal concluded that Schlegelberger "loathed the evil that he did" and that his real love was for the "life of the intellect, the work of the scholar." In the end he resigned because "the cruelties of the system were too much for him." Despite its obvious sympathy with Schlegelberger's plight, the tribunal found him guilty.

If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

[lsewpershad]

51. Seems like

The Rahm and our President are beginning to forget why they were elected and for whom they work.

[Laelth]

55. Evidently ...

Evidently, the peaceful transfer of power won out over justice. I admit that the peaceful transfer of power is valuable, but justice is valuable too, and justice got a black eye today.

Sad.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Blue_In_AK]

56. This is so wrong

and it casts a pall on all the good that the Obama administration is trying to do. I can't say that I'm surprised, but it IS disappointing.

[Stinky The Clown]

57. Well isn't that just special

[Bobbieo]

63. Support ACLU This is your answer!!!!!

[Solly Mack]

60. kick

[hardtoport]

61. How does one support the Obama administration on this issue?

I have no desire to get into an argument with anyone here. All I want to do is to say is that in this case, I think the best way to support our President is to insist that the United States will honor it's commitment to the U.N. Convention Against Torture. If I am wrong and Obama is playing three dimensional chess, I'll be overjoyed to be wrong. But if he isn't, what then?

I hated to admit to myself that the man I worked for, donated money to, made phone calls for, and voted for and hoped for, the man I expected to clean Bush's mess appears to be cleaning up by sweeping that steaming pile under the rug. I don't like it, but the time has come for me to stop hoping Obama is doing the right thing. It is time to start making it politically untenable for him to do anything but. We can't allow our president to make this particular mistake. We need this president to succeed. He will never be able to be effective on the world stage if he is seen to be protecting war criminals.

Rather than parsing the administration's statements and debating what Obama's intentions are, maybe we ought to be debating what our intentions are. Do we intend to allow the crimes of the Bush administration to go unpunished or not? We need to make that decision, then we need to let the world know where this country stands.

[glitch]

62. Excellent post and belated welcome to DU! nt

[Solly Mack]

64. Nicely said!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. Beautifully stated!

[Mark Twain Girl]

76. The multi-dimensional chess argument falls short. Support for human rights must be transparent,

obvious, and credible. Sneaking around with some super-secret plan while publicly condoning and covering up crimes against international law is no respect for human rights. It sets no example and gives no force to the rule of law. That's even if you buy the super top secret plan argument... which I don't.

Hoping that someone does the right thing was never the way to go and it's not how the American political system is supposed to work. We need to yell as loudly as we ever did against the Bush administration criminals. We need to say again, "not in our name." Torturers are not above the law in my country. (Well, clearly they are right now, but they must not be. Or else, what have we become?)

[TBF]

77. Welcome and great post! n/t

[MadBadger]

121. A Politician's first goal is to to remain in his office

This is what every one of my political science classes taught me in college. Politician cant get anything done if he isnt in office. Obama is a Politician. I know that is a defense that nobody wants or likes to hear, but no matter what a poll says, prosecutions are not a smart strategy politically.

"While the economy of the nation is in shambles, the president has decided to play politics and go after the previous administration."

That message will be the Republican rally cry and picked up and amplified everywhere in the media.


Now I know having this "conversation" (in quotes because it will immediately turn into an argument with harsh words being hurled my way) is hard to do.

I of course am a soulless Obamabot who is a disgusting pig who doesnt believe in the law.


I lost my train of thought...now tear me to pieces.

[tomm2thumbs]

151. agree - the world is not cut and dried as people have others believe

the Civil War proved that...

[rpannier]

163. Since then we've 'supposedly' evolved to the point where this behavior is unacceptable

That was the message of the Nuremberg Trials and it is sad we are now willing to compromise these principles in the name of 'cheap gutter politics.'

Why don't we try something 'Truman-esque' Take a stand on the issue, explain why it's important and trust that we are able to make our case to the public and that we will do enough correct that this will be a very small issue in 2012

The Republikkans have said for three decades not to trust the Democrats with power because we are afraid to take a stand that may cost us politically.
Seems on this issue there are people willing to prove them correct

[rpannier]

160. No point in doing so

I disagree with you.

There are things that should not be compromised.
We are supposed to uphold the rule of law and to let these people get away with it says "Why should anyone around the world support any rules or laws?"

on edit:
It doesn't make either of us better than the other

[Skittles]

168. he can work on the economy AND do the right thing regarding TORTURE

he WON'T but he COULD

[jonestonesusa]

170. But he's in office now till 2012.

There's a point when politicians must become statesmen. This includes moments when decisions about war and peace are made, as well as decisions about criminal justice. What Obama has done here is argue for a pre-emptive pardon of everyone involved in a large scale operation to torture prisoners, going quite far out on a political limb by doing so, since many of his supporters do not want this and his opponents will not support him no matter what. Not to mention that he is treaty-bound to seek prosecution of any criminal act that occurred here.

No need for a long argument here - the Obama administration has made its decision. Ignore the legacy of torture perpetrated by our own country in the so-called war on terror, from kidnapping of children to secret incarceration to sexual sadism to all the rest. Don Rumsfeld can rest comfy in his bed now. If you want to thank President Obama for this stance, have at it. But it's not just a political decision - it's a moral one.

[readmoreoften]

127. Welcome hardtoport!

I agree. If Obama is "truly progressive" and is being forced to make these anti-democratic decisions, then I would imagine that he desperately wants us to criticize him so that he can say "Look, my hands are tied... this is what America wants." And if he is a company man hired to calm the people after Bush's mess so that the military-industrial project can keep doing what it always does without the irritation of public outrage, then there is no reason to support him at all.

If he is the ethical leader that most imagined they voted for, criticizing him can only help.
If he isn't, then criticizing him is justified anyway.

We are the ones who are going to face the cost and pay the price for these decisions. If we don't have the right to criticize torture, then what's the point of living in a democracy?

[NoSheep]

146. Excellent post. A second one I can agree with.

[Zhade]

165. If you believe in justice and the rule of law, YOU DON'T.

NT!

[KoKo]

66. I just watched the video..My Impression...towards the end is the best part

where Rahm flubs an answer about "President Bush ...uh...something wanted these memo's released...and uh..onto...

It's before the part where Rahm says that there needs to be a time for "Reflection over Torture (and I assume other crimes of the Bushies). I wanted to yell at the VIDEO....FUCK IT! RAHM...YOU KNOW THAT ACTIVISTS AND DEMS in YOUR PARTY HAVE PASSED THE POINT OF REFLECTION! GET A LIFE, RAHM! You are speaking to Americans as if they are DEAF, and BEEN ABSENT...yet you are where you are because of the ACTIVISTS WHO PUT YOUR PRESIDENT IN THERE!

(Apologize for Raving CapLock..)

Anyway...his first part of the interview he sounded like he was a Repug being interviewed during Bush. He had his "TP's" down as to what Obama is doing in "rat-a-tat" fashion like the Repugs always did to us...but Notice Stephanopolis's ANTAGONISTIC interview? That's the key. "Snuffy" wouldn't have dared to treat a Repug like that EVER...but then, it's all "Theater" anyway, between Rahm & Snuffy...just the side show to the THINK TANKS that run them.

(again...apologize for my rant with CAP LOCK)

[pacalo]

73. I had the same impression about him sounding like a Repug, but in perpetual campaign mode.

After the first few minutes I just queued the video until I found the part about "time for reflection, not retribution".

I missed the part where he flubbed up, but rather than listening to him, I'll rely on your impression.

This "looking forward" stance after 8 years of hell is not acceptable.

[KoKo]

80. roll your video capture back to where Rahm mentions Bush...wanted memo's...

It freaked me out more than the rest.. It's worth a re-watch...I might have over reacted...but his slip up (seeming but calculated..imho) and the follow up was distressing that he was trying to separate Bush from Cheny in that little snip..would be worth the watch to know if I over reacted..there ..or was onto something that Rahm was throwing a "bone" to the "Bush wasn't the problem...weep..weep...it was ALL CHENEY's Fault..camp.

:shrug: I might just be too hyper that I seized on that moment in the clip. But...whatever...it's our Dem Party and not Obama that's the problem...again just my viewpoint..for whatever.

[pacalo]

83. Okay, I'll go back & look for it...

but only for you, KoKo. :)

[KoKo]

89. Well...if I was a DIVA ...I'd throw you a kiss!

sadly ..I'm just a serious wonker...:-(

but, thanks for checking.

[pacalo]

93. Having watched it again, my impression was that he was just tongue-tied at that moment.

I don't think he liked Stephanopoulos' questions, given the fact that he'd begin each of his answers with stammering.

The point I thought he was trying to make when he brought up the boy king was to minimize Stephanopoulos' insinuation that releasing these torture memos was giving terrorists a "road map in how to resist". If this is considered to be a "road map in how to resist", it began during the boy king's term, is what Rahm was implying, imo.

[KoKo]

101. Okay....Rahm was just "pushing back" on idiot Snuffy...

That's good to know.

[pacalo]

107. I think so.

:hi:

[KoKo]

135. Thanks...

I wondered if I heard it wrong. Glad to know I did... whew...

[leftstreet]

67. K&R

[Fire1]

68. Great. Let the courts and congress pursue it. eom

[bvar22]

205. Congress and The Courts cannot prosecute.

Prosecutions begin & end with the Executive Branch (thats the White House).

Congress cannot prosecute. All they can do is hold bullshit partisan investigations and WhiteWash Commissions. Even THEY have to go the the White House to get a prosecution started.

The Judicial Branch CANNOT Prosecute. All they can do is preside over a prosecution.

I am sick of people trying to pass this off.
This issue is belongs squarely to the White House.

The smartest thing the White House can do is to appoint an Independent Prosecutor..today....AND THEN step completely away from this explosive issue.

I suggest Donald Iglesias for Independent Prosecutor.

[Fire1]

212. According to Amnesty International it is up to the DOD to

refer the case to the DOJ. "The DOD must still rely on the DOJ to prosecute the cases of wrong doing it refers."

[Fire1]

223. Irony is, these are the same folks that 'approved' these

'advanced' techniques, in the first place. I gotta give it to shrub. He twisted this shit beyond recognition.

[Egnever]

69. That will be a mistake

I totaly understand not prosecuting the operatives the people that authorized and encouraged it though are a different matter.

[Mithreal]

87. Not buying it. Some interrogators are guilty of war crimes.

So convict interrogators but give them no jail time if they cooperate with investigators and we are forced to be all understanding and forgiving.

Actions have consequences. Each interrogator made a choice to come down on the wrong side of the law.

I still cannot understand why some people want there to be no consequences for the people who carried out torture.

Is there a link to an argument somewhere that explains persuasively why interrogators should not be subject to law?

[flyarm]

100. NO There is not ..but there is a caveat..of sorts..

i highlighted it in blue.........but that is also for interpretation ..I may be wrong but i believe this is in there to protect anyone following an order in the case where they could be killed for not following that order..I believe this would be under very strict interpretation by courts.I do not believe that would be the case for any CIA personal, because they are not under duress to take orders.



Nuremberg Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.

Thus, under Nuremberg Principle IV, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. Nuremberg Principle IV states:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.

All US military personnel are supposed to receive annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which delineates lawful and unlawful behaviors during armed conflicts, and is derived from the Geneva Conventions, a subset of international law. This training is designed to ensure that US military personnel are familiar with their military, ethical and legal obligations during wartime but proof of military personnel receiving this training is difficult to substantiate and is often not received.

[Egnever]

155. How many times does it need to be explained this is not a Nuremberg defense?

it is a fifth amendment defense. Keep repeating the same BS over and over if you want but it doesn't take away from the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Nuremberg It has to do with our own laws against entrapment. You could prosecute them in an international court and negate the fact that our AG authorized this behavior but you cant do it in our own courts.

Some of you folks are freaking thick. Not to mention there is no enforcement body for the geneva conventions so they are unenforceable anyway.

The law doesn't give a hoot what you think is wrong or even what is wrong it relies on the law only, justice is blind. Our law says the prosecuting authority can not call something legal then prosecute people for doing what they said was legal. Unless you want to negate the laws against entrapment you are stuck with no prosecutions for the underlings unless they were found to be carrying out these practices before the opinion or they went beyond the scope of the opinion.

[flyarm]

159. that is your freaking "opinion"..i have seen and read differently in many many places..

and by attorney's!

and talk about thick..others have told you that over and over again..verbatum!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm


CIA torture exemption 'illegal'
US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.

Mr Obama released four "torture memos" outlining harsh interrogation methods sanctioned by the Bush administration.

Mr Nowak has called for an independent review and compensation for victims.

"The United States, like all other states that are part of the UN convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," Mr Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard.

The memos approved techniques including simulated drowning, week-long sleep deprivation, forced nudity, and the use of painful positions.

[Egnever]

166. International law not US law

Can you not see the difference? Obama does not run the international courts in theory he is not even supposed to run our own. His statement exempted only specific cases where the CIA people followed the opinion of the AG "in good faith" No one else.

And its not opinion entrapment which is what the defense would be for those people is against the law of the US. Again take em to international court and you negate the US laws against entrapment but you cant do it in our courts, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Nuremberg. Its not my opinion its the fucking law according to the supreme court.

As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."

[flyarm]

167. US constitution.......

Section IV

Article V

<2> This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8006597.stm


CIA torture exemption 'illegal'
US President Barack Obama's decision not to prosecute CIA agents who used torture tactics is a violation of international law, a UN expert says.

The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, says the US is bound under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute those who engage in it.




xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ahhh and if you had even bothered to read you would have seen i was answering someone else's question!..but don't bother reading the post before hand ..........eom

[Egnever]

169. once again you are talking about INTERNATIONAL LAW!

Not US law. We have violated tons of treaties the rape of the american indians comes immediately to mind. Treaties are only as good as the nations that signed them chose to adhere to them.

Manfred is right it is a violation of international law but that doesn't mean jack in our court system! If they want to do something about it they have to take it to international court.

Your answer was bullshit I read your post. Its repeating the same thing over and over that wont hold in a US court for ten seconds. Again take it to international court and you will have a case but here in the US you have squat.

Also the AG's opinion according to US law ensured that according to US law they were not violating the geneva convention. So your quote of article V has no bearing whatsoever. The AG's opinion was that the actions did not constitute torture so article V doesn't even come into play with the underlings that were following that opinion in good faith. Unless you take the case to a court outside the US that does consider those actions torture.

I understand that the law is tricky but try to get past your freaking horror at what went on and try for a second to understand the intricacies of what the law actually is not what you want it to be . We are not bound by international law in the US the UN can not enforce its laws inside the US unless we allow them to do so and if you think allowing that is a good idea then I want some of what you are smoking. Hell the UN cant enforce anything it says unless we chose to enforce it for them. The idea that they can enforce something in the US against our will is fantasy land.

[conscious evolution]

184. What part of Article 4 Section 5 of the US constitution

do you not understand?
Ratified and signed Treaties ARE US law.
The AG opinions are just that-opinions.Opinions that are contrary to US LAW.

[bvar22]

232. Thick...thick...thick.

[Egnever]

240. of course they don't provide immunity

the key phrase obama stated was "in good faith"


that is the difference, and the ACLU is right. Those that did not act "in good faith" of the Doj 's opinions are wide open to prosecution. Those that did will avoid it with the defense that the DOJ rendered an opinion that it was not against the law.

Is that so hard to differentiate for you?

or are you THICK THICK THICK?

[bvar22]

246. Comprehension Problems?

or you didn't read the excerpts from the ACLU letter?
or
Just plain thick?

Let me help you.
The ACLU says to prosecute EVERYBODY involved in torture at any level.

There is no such thing as TORTURING "In Good Faith", even if you have a note from your lawyer.
That is NOT an exemption from Justice.

[Egnever]

247. No offense to the ACLU but they arent always right.

[DearAbby]

70. This is unacceptable

We must make a stand, America does not condone torture. those who torture will be held responsible.

[Canuckistanian]

71. In the long run, this would be worse than pardoning Nixon

Future unscrupulous (Bush-like) administrations will interpret this as a green light for similar behavior.

And they will take it further.

Let them know that this must stop here.

Impeaching Bybee is the first step.

[davidwparker]

82. then the injustice of what was done will fall on this administration

[santamargarita]

84. Absolutely, if they don't fix the problem then they're part of the problem

:mad:

[flyarm]

85. If the government becomes a law-breaker

Justice Louis D.Brandeis

"Our government is the potent, the omnipresent, teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself;"

This is a total disgrace..but does not for one moment suprise me..i never believed Obama had one intention of holding these criminals accountable..not from day one!

[Mithreal]

88. We have to come to grips with the idea that there are two Americas. nt

[flyarm]

111. I will never come to grips with that..

No one person is bigger than our constitution and our laws.

I believe in the rule of law and anyone that doesn't , i really question their allegiance to this nation!!

[The abyss]

92. So sorry to see this moved to “general discussion”

[Meeker Morgan]

95. I was accused of being an apologist for torture last time I said something like this ...

... but really I'm not. I'm just a hell of a lot more cynical about the way the world works.

Here I go again: The only way there can be a "Nuremberg" trial is to lose a world war.

Period.

[truebrit71]

98. Two words for Rahm. "Completely". "Unacceptable".

Hey pal...you do what WE say...not what YOU think we said..otherwise you get to find a new job in four years time, get it?

Torture is illegal...remember 'lipstick on a pig'? This is the ultimate case of Porcine Max Factor Application...I don't care WHO authorized it, or who actually did it...they are ALL complicit and they need to face prosecution...."I was just following orders" didn't work at Nuremberg...no reason it should work now...

And understand this 'Mr. Nuance', by failing to prosecute the offenders YOU become JUST AS COMPLICIT...

There is ZERO wiggle room here...under orders, persons unknown, TORTURED. That is an illegal act.

Prosecution of those responsible..THAT is change I can believe in.

If it isn't, good luck in four years time...'cos you won't see shit from me...

[depakid]

103. Emanuel's still out there making friends I see

This time next you watch- he'll be unemployed. People like Emanuel end up that way. It's in their nature.

[BlueJac]

104. Aiding and abetting is a crime in itself...

What else do we have. I have given up on the rule of law from a constitutional lawyer president! Blocking prosecutions of criminals is a crime in it self. Nough said!

[bertman]

106. Unfortunately, our new President is trying to avoid having the "Kennedy option" implemented.

I thought it was pretty crafty letting the little fish swim away unscathed so he wouldn't have the guys at "The Agency" all worried about war-crime trials.

If Rahm's telling us the whole truth, then our President is thinking about his family first, his country second. In his situation, that would be pretty easy to rationalize. Let's see, I can stay alive and get a lot of good things done and roll back a lot of what the Republicans did, except I won't be able to restore the rule of law and the primacy of the U.S. Constitution. Or I can TRY to restore the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution and go down in the history books as the first African-American President and the fifth President who was assassinated.

I wish there were more that We the People could do to ensure that the "Kennedy option" would not be invoked, but I just don't think it's possible. The Powers That Be are holding all the cards in this game. Sad to say because I'm pretty sure it means we will never go back to the time and place when the U.S. was a Constitutional government and not a corporate puppet government.

[tomm2thumbs]

108. Emanuel needs to NOT be on TV - he is not good for the administration's image - period.

I support the administration, but his spastically inarticulate answers, lack of pacing and inability to think before talking show he is not a good thing to put out there in the press - time and time again, he is functionally disabled with interviews like this one. He needs to stay behind the scenes and leave the PR for the big boys & girls.

[Lena inRI]

152. I totally agree with your point here, tomm2thumbs. . .

. . . but I'll go one step further; this Rahm shouldn't even be behind the scenes if his speech pattern is so incoherent because speech reflects your thinking ability.

Relying on the transcript up thread since I don't watch "the TV", Rahm sputters in incomplete sentences like this:

"EMANUEL: What he believes is, look, as you saw in that statement he wrote, and I would just take a step back. He came up with this and he worked on this for about four weeks, wrote that statement Wednesday night, after he made his decision, and dictated what he wanted to see. And Thursday morning, I saw him in the office, he was still editing it."

Where's the direct object to the verb "believes" to explain what Obama believes should be done about those Bush administrators who wrote the torture memos?

Rahm's incoherent, evasive speech says to me any or all of the following:

1--He cannot think logically, in critical, vertical sequence. His words precede thought.

2--Or he's padding his answer with BS as he lies.

3--Or he is so habitually profane when he speaks off-air that not being able to curse on-air throws him off.

Mr. President, PLEASE replace this Rahm asap for someone who can reflect your intellectual acuity and communication skills.

:think: :think: :think: :think: :think:

[puebloknot]

109. Déjà vu: Rahm Emanuel, circa 1945:

"The German people said they wanted us to get to work for them. Holding trials at Nuremberg would just be a distraction. The Marshall Plan is a forward-looking enterprise, and we just can’t spread ourselves too thin by feeding the hungry *and* holding criminals accountable. The war has only been over a few months. What do you expect? Rather than to critize, realize that we’ve swept the streets, we’ve set up soup kitchens, we’re handing out blankets and clothing. We are devoting our energies to the living, not the dead."

"No prosecutions against those who, in good faith, followed the orders of their Nazi superiors. This is a time for reflection, not retribution and anger."

Sheist!

[spanone]

110. no impeachment, no prosecutions....no law

[Bluebear]

113. It's the time for reflection, not retribution.

My hope is fading.

[L. Coyote]

112. REC 60 ... Zig Heil Herr Bush. Thank you New Führer

[Buzz Clik]

117. Love these Nazi comparisons.

The retreat of small minds.

[readmoreoften]

128. Well, I mean, except when you're dealing with failure to implement the Nuremberg Code

because you don't think it applies to you. If you can't hold yourself up to the standards you set for the Nazis, then guess what category you belong to? Medical practitioners conducting SERE experiments on those "less than human" Afghani taxi drivers and farmers being held without charges is really no different than experimentation on any other group. Being forced to listen to heavy metal on headphones 24 hours a day for 18 months straight in a state of otherwise sensory deprivation? Crushing the testicles of the infant son of a "presumed enemy combatant" in front of them as punishment (supported by Yoo)?

Let's get serious. If we don't want comparisons made, then let's stop violating Nuremberg and prosecuting those who do.

[L. Coyote]

153. There comes a point when polite conversatio is no longer up to the task and situation

and we have to get to the heart of the matter. Agency is the concept that people are actors making choices. Choices have consequences. Leaders may get a pass under Hitler's regime, but in America they are subject to laws. Agency is not something we ignore because of historical circumstance. There was no era of permissible fascism and war crimes, simply put! At no time was rule of law suspended for anyone! And, Mr. Obama, you can't decide at this late hour that there was.

[Buzz Clik]

180. No. You've committed at least three logical fallacies.

[grahamhgreen]

114. I think his stance is illegal.

[Buzz Clik]

116. I disagree with the policy of avoiding all prosecutions. But Nuremberg? Please.

That comparison is offensive to all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

[grahamhgreen]

120. For each individual tortured, the horror is exactly the same.

[Buzz Clik]

179. The comparison is asinine and childish.

It also weakens the case.

[grahamhgreen]

241. For you. Not for me.

[Vidar]

119. Rahm Emmanuel is a traitor & deserves to be treated as such.

[MadBadger]

122. Don't we kill them?

[Vidar]

133. No, we give them Secret Service protection.

[AllHereTruth]

123. It may be late in the game to get my voice heard

Let me state i voted for Obama and i will support his agenda as long as it is what I support. Simple as that.

If we fall into a mentality of "Well guys, He's no Bush. At least he's a democrat" then we have become nothing better then the neo-cons. This is OUR time to stand up and make OUR president and representatives do what WE want. Liberal, Conservative, Democrat, Republican WE must tell them what WE want done.

We can sit back and bitch all day about how our 'Leaders' are not doing what we want them to do. Or we can tell them directly and boldly what NEEDS to be done.



If anyone read this far i hope you share your thoughts.

[dpbrown]

Just what you should expect from the DLC

Rahm is a poster child.

[grahamhgreen]

124. This stance jeopardizes the United Sates people, and tramples on our laws and constitution. It will

increase the resolve of the terrorists. It will make us less safe.

Part of the grand scheme of creating conflict to make money off of war, hatred, death and destruction; AKA, the military industrial complex; AKA the war profiteers... good plan to make money in the most evil way, I guess.

[MessiahRp]

126. It's amazing the lengths which Rahm and Obama will go to protect Bush

when Cheney has entrenched buddies still in Government offices reporting to him so he can still somewhat control policy. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/31/hersh-cheney-behind/)

It's sad that either Obama is so naive to think that they're supposed to be friendly with an Administration that is still pulling shit behind the scenes on them and trashing him publicly at every turn, or that he's so complicit with the elite power structure that he really has no sense of the importance of justice.

Either way what fools all of us Democrats look like... thinking we're voting for change when that's the furthest thing from the truth.

Rp

[bvar22]

129. Barak Obama and the Democratic Party....

Protecting War Criminals and Torturers

because.... they tortured in good faith.

Boggles the mind and pains the soul.
And I'm supposed to support these people?

There is now NO DOUBT that crimes have been committed.
Obama is BOUND by at least 4 treaties to prosecute torturers.

With Rahm's announcement this morning, Obama and The Democrats now OWN the War Crimes of the last administration.

[MissDeeds]

142. You nailed it

Is this the change we voted for? Did we want a president who would fail - yes fail - to prosecute these people? If Obama and the Democrats permit this atrocity to go unpunished, they own it. Furthermore, they are complicit.

[brentspeak]

220. Don't slag the entire Democratic Party on this

There were/still are some Democrats in Congress opposed to the torture policy.

[flyarm]

130. The Conscience of a Liberal Paul Krugman

The Conscience of a Liberal
Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/183/

April 19, 2009, 3:25 pm
183
Back from a partly medical absence. Before I do some economics posts, I think I ought to say something about the torture memos — namely, that there is now no way to view the people who ruled us these past 8 years as anything but monsters. We had all these rationalizations of torture over the “ticking clock” and all that — then we learn, for example, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month.

I really don’t even want to think about all this. But this was our government — and these people might be back.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE MR KRUGMAN!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU!
THIS IS ONE LIBERAL THAT SAYS LOUD AND CLEAR..NOT IN MY NAME!!!!!!!!! I WANT ALL THESE CRIMINALS PROSECUTED NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!

PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND WATCH THE HALLMARK HALL OF FAME MOVIE TONIGHT ON CBS "The COURAGEOUS HEART OF IRENA SENDLER"

AND ASK YOURSELF HOW COURAGEOUS YOU ARE WILLING TO BE TO STAND UP FOR THE PRINCIPLES AND VALUES THAT USED TO EXIST FOR YOU AS A DEMOCRAT AND AMERICAN!!

FLY

[flyarm]

131. WATCH THE HALLMARK HALL OF FAME MOVIE TONIGHT ON CBS "The COURAGEOUS HEART OF IRENA SENDLER"

WATCH IT AND WEEP..AND DO SOME SERIOUS THINKING ..PLEASE!!!!!!!

Children were tortured in your name..and mine..

I have never stopped feeling sick over that fact alone..

Not in my name..the ACLU will get my money and i will appeal to every nation outside of ours to try these monsters for war crimes if our nation is too gutless and will not!

Oh and don't even try to tell me this is a damned chess game ..save your breath!!!!!!!

[Downtown Hound]

132. The RNC 8 get charged with terrorism

And these assholes walk away scott free. I know the terrorism charges have been dropped, but they still face more criminal charges than these monsters ever will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. Ah Iran-Contra and its stench comes to mind

universal prosecution will be the only way for any of these people to face justice

The US will not do it.

They've lost their moral compass.

[omega minimo]

139. Thank you STRATEGERISTS for A smooth transition to the New World Order where justice = OFF THE TABLE

:yourock:

[FLAprogressive]

140. Where are all the Rahm defenders now?

oh that's right, jacking each other off in GD : P.

[omega minimo]

141. attacking longtime journalists who warn of globalization and US economic collapse

[ProSense]

143. Waterboarding is torture

Waterboarding is torture


By not prosecuting these war criminals, U.S. elected officials will prove to the world that they are despicable hypocrites.

[defendandprotect]

144. What other crimes aren't we going to prosecute . . . oh, maybe criminal capitalism????

Which so far is costing taxpayers $8.5 TRILLION plus another $3 - maybe $4 TRILLION????

I say NO to Emmanuel and to DLC ---

and any influence they have on Obama which caused his to make this screwed up decision!!!

[MisterP]

147. but he's a *fighter* waah! would YOU have liked the REPUBLICANS to have won?

in 1913, Mexico's Pres. Madero asked Victoriano Huerta to defend the Presidency from the rebelling Bernardo Reyes and Felix Diaz: the two sides began an artillery duel within Mexico City--but the conspriators had enlisted Huerta, so they kept misfiring, so as to hit the population and cause chaos. Huerta had Madero executed and became President until 1914. Nobody praises him as the savior of democracy, or as doing what he "had" to do.
Venustiano Carranza acceded in 1917, but turned against the Revolution's ideals in favor of repressing Mexico for the sake of foreign capital. He was gunned down in 1920 by his successor.
Carlos Andres Perez's 1989 campaign declared he'd fight the IMF devastation of Venezuela: upon entering office, he did the IMF's bidding and had 2,000 protesters gunned down. Nobody hails him as a brilliant, pragmatic man who got things done.
Carlos Menem gave free passes to one of the most obscene, bloodthirsty regimes after World War II: not until the 2000s was accountability restored to the guys who got jollies by feeding leftist guests to caimans. Only the clinically insane, and relatives of the troops who defended democracy by beating people in swastika-adorned rooms and slaughtering tens of thousands, consider him a figure who united and calmed Argentina so it could move on into a shiny future (adorned with live, impaled 2-year-olds? one wonders).
On DU I've seen Gerald Ford flattered as one who was on the right side of history, whose denouncers would be forgotten in future decades--because he "healed" the nation by letting scores of guilty men go free. The only rationale was that a trial would've somehow led to civil war between the Hard Hats and the investigative journalists and Congressional aides, rather than the permanent evaporation of the latter, as reason and intuition would tell us.
Do other countries' party flacks try to castigate dissenters by vomiting repeatedly-discredited platitudes at them?

Washington, Madison, Lincoln, and FDR are remembered as the peak of the US Presidency. They certainly bargained to obtain things, but lost little and never made deals with antdemocratic forces or bartered away accountability. Above all, they were strong idealists: their major actions were undertaken to reach certain goals. Compromise and centrism, especially for their own sake, generally are strong eroders of rights and progress by any definition: in most cases, they lead to issue-free power politics and caudillos' cults of personality, where what matters is not what's said or whether it ever comes true, but who said it.

[G_j]

148. Fuck That!

We are NOT going to forget. Then there is the little crime of Aggressive War, leading to 1,320,110 deaths: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.htmlof

Torture is just one of their crimes! It may be time to hit the streets.

[flvegan]

149. Don't blame me. I voted for Dennis Kucinich.

[Lyric]

150. And Lee Mercer Jr. All three. n/t

[daughter of liberty2]

154. WTF? This is so wrong!

We should be in the streets over this one.:mad:

[Snazzy]

156. in Obama's own words

{W}e reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

--Obama, Inaugural Address

[Zhade]

162. I'm fucking done with Obama. I'm done with all of this shit.

There's no fucking point. HE LIED TO US.

[empyreanisles]

171. I repeat: This board is full of self-righteous blowhards.

President Obama is doing an outstanding job. So go ahead and bitch about your little disappointments while real, TANGIBLE change moves ahead in the next 4 years.

You'll still be complaining about how the world isn't perfect yet.

P.S. - I also think Rahm went off the script. Obama's answer as to whether higher ups should be prosecuted is always the non-committal "We should look forward, not back". It has never been a definitive, "no, under no circumstances".

[Nostalgic]

172. I'm very disappointed in the Obama administration over this.

I knew that he would be governing from the middle of the political spectrum but that he would still prosecute these guys.

[orleans]

173. "Emanuel: NO PROSECUTION OF BUSH OFFICIALS"

well, THANK GOD! i'm sure all the bush officials are EXTREMELY RELIEVED. now everyone can sleep at night. i mean, really, who wants to prosecute those old "bush officials" anyway? don't we have something better to do? like look forward (as an example)? or..what if we're chewing gum and walking at the same time? we don't want to trip now do we? we could swallow that gum--and that would be a terrible embarrassment. hence, we have to keep looking forward. (unless we're walking backward--and if we're going backward we probably shouldn't be chewing so much gum)

[BigBearJohn]

174. I think the reason they won't prosecute is because Democrats would not escape prosecution either.

Things would be dug up that the Democrats DON'T want released to the General Public.

[rambler_american]

175. K&R

:kick:

[Hubert Flottz]

178. I want a recount!

I voted for "CHANGE" and all I got was spare change!

[tclambert]

181. "America does not torture!" - Barack Obama

"Psych! I had my fingers crossed!" - also Barack Obama.

"Heh, heh, heh. We got away with it, Georgie." - Richard "Dick" Cheney.

[Algorem]

182. it's as cool as gaza,baby.they got the might they got the right.

[RedCloud]

183. Wait! We have to pay for Justice? They get off for free?

Just like when Clinton didn't go after Bush I for the Oct. 18, 1980 treasonous meeting with Iranian hostages.

The repugs didn't go after Clinton then, did they?

[Bluenorthwest]

185. Can he win an election with the dozen or so

here who will tie their own karma to Bush's torture to defend monsters? Hope so.

[valerief]

187. So torturing is okay if the administration wants it and is not okay if the administration doesn't

want it.

I guess the concept of a policy on torture is pretty meaningless.

[kentuck]

189. There will be no prosecutions...

There won't even be an investigation.

[Algorem]

192. Son of a terrorist.

does he really have dual citizenship?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

193. :( eom

[freemarketer6]

194. This will go down as the biggest mistake in history by an

American President. Obama will not be re-elected now.

[RalphieD]

196. Find and torture all Bushies

Round them up, put them in Gitmo, torture them.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

197. This is a disappointment, but not a HUGH one

When I voted for Obama, I was hoping for universal health care, and an end to the wars.

So far, those are the major disappointments, though maybe I'm just too impatient.

"Prosecuting Bushies" was way down my list of priorities. It's important (and would make great television), but there are bigger fish to fry.

:hi:

[BonnieJW]

198. Sign the petition at Firedog Lake

http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Prosecutor

Demand that Holder appoint a special prosecutor. Neither the president nor his chief of staff has the power to prevent the AG from appointing a special prosecutor. We must become a nation of laws again if we are to reclaim any dignity in the eyes of the world. We cannot look the other way any longer.

[bdamomma]

200. done

this is really bad, mistakes of the past will be repeated again, and I guess Cheney and Bush are above the law, very disappointing.

[No More Bushbots]

201. 2012 Obama/Biden vs. Palin/Jindel

Who are YOU going to vote for?

[Mithreal]

209. Who are you gonna work to get elected and how hard are you gonna work?

There is more to being a progressive than a single vote.

I multiplied my effect by thousands of phone calls and knocked doors. I would like to have some enthusiasm when I get up in the morning and consider whether I am gonna help the community organize or not. Every person who thinks it is just Obama versus Palin is oversimplifying in extreme.

[mod mom]

213. the U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, told the AP that the U.S. had to abide by the U.N. Convention

A U.N. torture expert said Saturday that the United States has an obligation to prosecute CIA officers who used harsh interrogation tactics to question detainees in the War on Terror. Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur in Geneva, told the AP that the U.S. had to abide by the U.N. Convention against Torture to make torture illegal and seek justice against those who used it. Nowak criticized President Obama's logic in the decision announced Thursday not to prosecute CIA officers who used the tactics -- including waterboarding. "The fact that you carried out an order doesn't relieve you of your responsibility," Nowak said. (AP)

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/the_daily_muck_805.php

[florida08]

216. I believe they do have an obligation as well

The United States ratified the terms of Geneva in 1994. The very word ratify means to approve,express assent, responsibility, or obligation to. This means it is now in continuity with the laws of our republic. As a party to the Convention, the United States is required to submit periodic reports describing its compliance with the Convention to the Committee against Torture. Following are excerpts from the Initial Report the United States submitted to the Committee against Torture in 1999 (CAT/C/28/Add.5) that pertain to questions such as "Is torture a crime in the US?"

Response from US

6. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of the Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a "state of public emergency") or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory. ...

11. .... Although there is no federal law criminalizing torture per se, any act falling within the Convention's definition of torture is clearly illegal and prosecutable everywhere in the country, for example as an assault or battery, murder or manslaughter, kidnapping or abduction, false arrest or imprisonment, sexual abuse, or violation of civil rights.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

Now it would seem to me that if the president is going to ignore this ratified American law we should repeal it because it's already been determined that what was done constitutes torture. He should hear from us..even if ignored..because that's what a democracy does. He should know that this is unacceptable to the people who elected him. I can't see any reason for inaction on this that would be good for the country and isn't that what laws are about? I didn't vote for Obama per se I voted for a president..a leader..someone who would have the nations back. If he wants to keep the support he was graciously given he has to earn it by doing what's right even when it's hard..that's what a leader does. If not he should explain why not. I admit I thought this was going to be easy. Bush out Obama in but apparently that's not the case.

[defendandprotect]

221. Emmanuel doesn't like Nuremberg Trial laws . . . ???

Isn't Emmanuel Jewish?

In fact, doesn't he hold dual citizenship Israel/America?

"Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."<5><6>

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

Looks like "dual citizenship" will take more exploring . . .

Rahm Emanuel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Early and...|Career as...|Career in...|Congressional...
Rahm Israel Emanuel is an American politician currently serving as White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama. He served previously as Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel - 304k - Cached

Oxdown Gazette " AIPAC, Barack Obama and Rahm Emmanuel
Has Rahm Emmanuel sworn any type of oath during his Israeli military service ... makes sense that Rahm Emmanuel had to have dual citizenship when he served in ...oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/1563 - 63k - Cached

Rahm Emmanuel -- Am I the Only One with Reservations? | Fodorite Lounge ...
Topic posted in the Fodorite Lounge forum on the Fodor's Travel ... has Israeli citizenship ... and Rahm had dual Israeli-U.S. citizenship, but relinquished ...fodors.com/forums/pgMessages.jsp?fid=134&tid=35167241&...&start=0 - 84k - Cached

Can the GOP Come Back? | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual ...
Emmanuel has dual citizenship with Israel and actually served in the Israeli Army. ... North Carolina Presidency Rahm Emmanuel Republican Saxby Chambliss Senate ...www.unitedliberty.org/articles/can-the-gop-come-back - 56k - Cached

[FLAprogressive]

230. and he has a Napoleon Complex

[earth mom]

224. This is unbelievable. Hope and change my a$$!

:grr:

[deaniac21]

231. This is great news for the posion caterpillar market.

[Generator]

235. God some people on this site are absolute suckers

And they hate having it pointed out. LIKE DUH man. Of course they will still believe Obama has some magic cooked up until the second he leaves office. Maybe it's all a movie anyway. All that is required is nice speeches from the hero.


The second he announced Rahm I knew Mr. Hope was nothing but a dog and pony show. I did have a good few days though. That was nice.

[cliffordu]

249. Has there been an update to this story yet?????

:rofl: