This Is Seriously Absurd. We Have Confessions To War Crimes And We Won't Prosecute.

[MannyGoldstein]

It's the craziest thing: we have voluntary public confessions, and ample evidence that obvious war crimes were committed, Hundreds were murdered, many or most tortured to death. Yet we're told that the matter needs to be studied, that it's not clear.

This is crazy. It is an affront to the most basic tenets of justice, a huge middle-finger wagged at the good people who conducted the Nuremberg trials in the hope that civilization would never again countenance such naked cruelty. It is American Exceptionalism at its lowest. And it should not be tolerated.

We recently had an international family reunion. It struck me full-on that entire branches of my family tree are gone, exterminated by people who, when not challenged, became bolder and crueler until 12 million innocents had been destroyed.

President Obama, nobody said this was going to be simple; but governing comes with the job, whether you like it or not. Please do your duty.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Did you miss the news today?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Was A Prosecution Announced?

Was Rahm "We Won't Prosecute" Emanuel harshly rebuked?

If so, I missed it. All I heard was some mewling and buck-passing.

[Occam Bandage]

22. No. He also didn't announce that he wouldn't be illegalizing cheeseburgers.

How dare Obama try to illegalize cheeseburgers!

[MannyGoldstein]

23. So Cheeseburgers Equal War Crimes?

Wow.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Didn't say they were remotely equal. Only that Obama also did not deny he was going to ban burgers.

[stillcool]

2. Who says there will be no prosecutions?

this shit is just starting, and it seems to be cooking up nicely.

[Solly Mack]

3. Thank you!

"This Is Seriously Absurd. We Have Confessions To War Crimes And We Won't Prosecute."

That prosecution is even a question just boggles the mind.

And people are , indeed, "debating" (questioning) whether there should be prosecutions or not.

[driver8]

5. Amazing, isn't it?

Our country -- the shining beacon of democracy -- has to debate whether or not to prosecute war criminals.

[Solly Mack]

6. Speaks volumns...screams it, in fact

[Skittles]

17. and I thought it was outrageous when they were debating TORTURE

:mad:

[babylonsister]

7. You've been here a long time. Why are you surprised

that this isn't happening immediately? The guy hasn't been in office 100 days yet, Holder even less, there have been some major problems to address, but you're pissed?

Please. You know about those wheels of justice. Well, maybe you don't! The wheels are rolling.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. What More Needs To Be Discovered?

Obama, via his DLC proxy, has told us that he'd prefer to not prosecute. Today he threw us a little morsel, and said he wasn't ruling it out, whatever that means. He's certainly fine with throwing pot smokers in prison, but confessed war criminals... that requires further study.

People have been tortured to death in your name, and our President is functionally ambivalent. Why aren't you angry as hell?

[babylonsister]

9. Manny, I know you're pissed, and sorry, but I'm not. And no,

he told us that the executive branch's job is to do what they're doing. The judicial branch and Congress should deal with this. And that's what will happen.

Patience, grasshopper.

And after 8 years of bullshit, you're throwing bricks at this man who hasn't even been there 100 days?

Come on. Chill.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. The Judiciary Cannot Do Its Job WIthout Prosecution By The Executive.

Obama must do his duty. It's quite simple.

[babylonsister]

18. And you are quite simply getting ahead of what will probably happen.

He did fine today by not closing the door, and you know it.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Want To Bet $50 Over Whether Anybody In The Bush Administration Gets Indicted For War Crimes?

Check goes to the charity of the winners choice. Only if the Obama Administration indicts; foreign entities don't count.

[babylonsister]

25. How about indicted, period. They are liable for as much domestically,

or would that be lesser charges? I think there are people from the * admin who won't make it out unscathed.

[SIMPLYB1980]

12. Give it some time to play out it's in Holders hands for now.

Or should we just round them up and hang them all without a trial. The evidence that is already out their will require a trial.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. NoTrial Is Required At All.

Will not happen unless the Obama Administration asks for it.

[Solly Mack]

10. I'm not speaking about Obama and would rather no one turned what I said into something

it wasn't.

The fact remains that far too many in America are debating prosecutions, turning it into a question of should we or shouldn't
we - just like they are debating the merits of torture. (unreal as that sounds)

There is no merit in torture and there should be no question about prosecutions.

[babylonsister]

16. But that's what America does. They have 24/7 to fill, so everything

is massaged, debated, criticized, TO DEATH!

Doesn't and won't negate the facts in a court of law, but that will take time, especially in this present environment.

[Solly Mack]

Doesn't change the that it's sickening that people "debate" torture

as if there is anything to debate

or that people "debate" prosecution for war crimes

At least I find it sickening.

Which was my only point.

[babylonsister]

28. Well we agree on the point, not the time frame. nt

[Solly Mack]

30. I didn't comment on a time frame

[babylonsister]

32. OK. You sound disappointed that this isn't happening immediately, so

I extrapolated. Sorry.

[Solly Mack]

33. Well, I want prosecutions yesterday - but I've said that since Bush took office

That man was criminal from the word selection

Not really a reflection on a time frame...more frustration than anything.

[Mark Twain Girl]

14. Thank you. I am in stunned disbelief. War crimes are not a matter for debate.

We are obligated to investigate and prosecute fully. Why is this even a matter for discussion?

Here's what is getting to me lately: I think we'll get a phony "blue ribbon panel." Maybe a sacrificial lamb. I don't believe we'll have anything approaching justice.

[BlooInBloo]

15. I want a schnozzberry NOW DADDY!!!!!!

[Fire1]

34. Pretty much.

[ddeclue]

20. That's nothing we had Bush live on national TV telling reporters

he broke the FISA laws and would do it again. It was a Perry Mason moment and what happened?

Did we impeach?

NO.

The chicken ass Congress changed the laws to retro-actively let Bush and the telcos off the hook.

I suppose we know why now - see the Jane Harmon file...

Doug D.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. That's Also Insane n/t

[Fool Count]

26. I wouldn't say "we won't prosecute".

Even if that is the President's personal opinion that CIA torturers should be immune,
that still doesn't make it so legally. Even if he manages to impose that opinion on
his AG who decides not to pursue the case in federal courts, there are other avenues
within the legal system for bringing the perpetrators to justice. For instance,
there are 50 state AGs in the US, and there is enough room in state statutes for
any of them to bring charges in state courts. If that fails, there are non-governmental
entities (i.e. ACLU) that can arguably claim legal standing to file charges on
behalf of the victims. If that fails, much (if not most) of the torturing took place
in CIA secret prisons outside US. Any of those countries can claim jurisdiction
and prosecute the responsible parties under its own laws. If that fails, there are
countries (i.e. Spain and Belgium) that have "universal jurisdiction" laws in respect
to crimes against humanity, which torture certainly is. They can prosecute those
crimes in their own courts. Moreover, they have legal cooperation agreements with many
other countries, and their arrest warrants are, in principle, enforceable on a very
wide territory. So if I was one of those CIA torturers, I would be very concerned now and
would not rely too much on the President's personal promise of immunity. And most of all,
I would avoid traveling to Europe for the rest of my life.

[mitchtv]

27. Let's see "please do your duty"

now watch the devoutrage. You got a lot of nerve manny Goldstein:sarcasm:

[WhiteTara]

29. the wheels of justice grind finer and slower

than your keyboard.

[many a good man]

31. The least we should do is issue all the war criminal balloons

and let them skip in the park on sunny days.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Revelations are a week old and you want...

prosecutions already?

It works that way in Iran, not here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. K&R Justice should trump political expediency and PR.

[babylonsister]

37. Yes, let's get everyone indicted before the first 100 days!

Come on. Good thing there are no other pressing, serious, problems to worry about. This is serious, but so is joblessness, homelessness, etc.

I reckon whatever issue is addressed first, other people will be pissed that it isn't their issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Issues get addressed by politicians because pressure is applied.

As in, the release of the memos were because of pressure from the ACLU and other human rights groups. Sitting back and "trusting" politicians is a fool's errand.