I'm curious--where do torture prosecutions fall on your list of priorities?

[ecstatic]

Poll question: I'm curious--where do torture prosecutions fall on your list of priorities?

[Occam Bandage]

1. I don't think it's necessarily a "one or the other" thing,

and either way it's political necessity that if we plan on ever going after torture at all, we oughtn't let the issue die to be resurrected later. Resurrecting the dead isn't always easy.

But that said, torture prosecutions are far, far below healthcare. As is everything else.

[LuckyTheDog]

20. First, I need a job

Then I will be able to see prosecutions as a top priority.

[Believing Is Art]

2. One comment

It's really up to Holder. In that case, which should be his top priority - Siegelman or torture?

[EFerrari]

3. If I have to, I'll put it at the top because, in addition to the whole

idea of holding BushCo accountable, it sends a signal to everyong in our government that the rule of law is back. It's hard to think of anything more fundamentally important than that.

[slipslidingaway]

10. +1 n/t

[mike_c]

4. other....

The federal government is a big institution. It can take on more than one task at once. Health care reform, fixing the economy, ending the wars, prosecuting crimes against humanity-- we really can do them all at once. It might confuse the media to have to make sense of multiple stories simultaneously, but other than that, it's hard to think of any reason to tackle the issues pressing this country in a linear manner.

[ecstatic]

7. The gov't should be able to multitask, but we should be too

And it seems that lately, our side is focused only on one thing and not keeping the pressure up on equally important issues.

[polichick]

5. I don't see it that way at all - many things happen at once, this will be one. nt

[NightWatcher]

6. can't he do more than one thing at a time?

I think that whether or not the prosecutions happen, they will not happen because of Obama's direct involvement. Sure, he can give a nod to Holder at DOJ, but I think the best way to get this done is through Congressional hearings, but alas I suspect that Conyers will talk a good game but continue his pattern of not doing shit on the matter.

I think this may be a great chance to open the door to investigate the higher ranking officials from shrub's admin.

[ecstatic]

9. Yes, but there will be fallout in the congress/senate

that could affect how easily other things get done.

[NightWatcher]

15. I think the Dems would gain seats in 2010 if they started playing hardball

I'm sick of the milktoast dems and will have trouble getting motivated to help in the next election unless they get some nerve.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMS BUST SOME REPUKE HEADS.
-but I know they'll never do it and we'll see a replay of the 90's- hell even Newt's coming out of hiding for another run at "contract on amurika". They need to cowboy up and grab the bull by the horns.

[barbtries]

8. i put it at number 1

but really other things are just as important. we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[TahitiNut]

11. Just becasue walking has priority over chewing gum doesn't mean they can't be done at the same time.

:shrug:

[sutz12]

12. Voted two, but I believe in multi-tasking...

Besides, this should be DOJ's top priority, not necessarily Congress's or POTUS's.

Holder should handle this while the White House stays a bit above this fray to preserve whatever semblance of non-partisanship they can. The Repubs will scream, but there looks like there may be some Dems in the crosshairs, too (like Harmon). While it isn't "the most important thing" IMO, it cannot be dropped and picked up later.

[Chan790]

13. 6. "I believe that prosecution belongs off the table entirely."

I'm in favor of a forward-looking presidential administration that does not dwell on the previous regime or its' undertakings, legal or otherwise. I buy into the notion that we (and all administrations) have a limited amount of political capital and one-cent wasted on the Bushistas is one cent too much because it could have been better spent elsewhere changing the political landscape forever.

The GOP is fucked long-term anyways unless we do something dumb like prosecute, knowing that the media is going to frame it as witch-hunt regardless of its' legitimacy. Why hand a free pass back into legitimacy to the GOP?

[ecstatic]

21. Interesting point. I personally am at number 5, but

number 6 seems like a reasonable view as well. The people will need a reason to vote for democrats again in '10 and '12 and I'm not sure that they will be motivated to if it seems as if most of our time was spent getting revenge.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Americans know the difference between justice and revenge

In fact most Americans know people who have been suject to courts and legal actions, even people who are jailed, and most of the time they know that criminals pay a price, they do not sit around wondering why a crime got punished. In fact, the real danger here is that the public will see that some are suject to a different set of rules, and that will void the social contract in a flash. All bets will be off, while some are concerned with how Republicans will react to justice, the lack of justice might bring us to an end.
The truth sets you free. And we need to be free.

[Chan790]

23. That seems naive and idealistic to me.

People are sheep. If they can avoid thinking, they do. Rather to be fed the pablum than to strain in thought.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. That seems jaded and elitist to me

People are not sheep. Your view of your fellow Americans is noted. I do not agree at all. And while I try to avoid being snarky, I'd like to say your sentax sucks. "Rahter to be fed the pablum than to strain the thought." Is not even a sentance, and yet you claim others are less intellectually astute than you are, less qualified to asses American's abilities to discern the truth when given a chance to do so?
If you are going to smugly dismiss others as naiev and as sheep, the least you can do is to be coherent about it.

[Chan790]

29. So does your spelling and grammar.

syntax not sentax. Rather not Rahter. assess not asses. Americans' not American's. (Unless you're speaking of one individual named American who possesses the ability to discern the truth when given a chance to do so.) I'll stop now, to go on would be to rub it in.

You didn't even quote me correctly. What I said was not only syntactically and grammatically correct, it was a complete thought although a bit too pithy and a mite dime-store-intellectual on re-examination.

As for coherence, did you read your reply before you posted it? It reads like it was written by a 3rd grader.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Satire of your ravings

nothing like smug to eat up a sense of humor. nothing like want to make a person need. nothing like truth to make a person show even more o' the nasty.
But sure, kiddo, you are the only non sheep in the flock. You alone are enlightened.
Your post made me sad. It is just so sad to see. Sorry I was mean to you. Time will bring all wisdom, so worry not.
Peace

[Selatius]

30. Nothing changes if nothing is risked.

The odds are long and hard, but nothing changes if nothing is risked. It's an old and tired cliche, but it holds some truth. The safe path would be to ignore the crimes and move on, but that also includes putting the future of the Republic at risk in the long-run as opposed to the short-run. The same people who perpetrated these crimes or perhaps their loyal underlings, if allowed to roam free, could conceivably return to power when a new administration more warm to their presence and extremist ideas wins the office.

We could ignore the crimes that were committed under Bush, but at the same time, that would likely mean permanently establishing the notion in the minds of people that leaders live by a different set of rules than commoners. Kill one person and burn down his house, and you go to prison as a convicted murderer and arsonist. Kill over a million and level an entire country, and you will simply be labeled as "controversial."

I remember this argument very well as far as doing the principled thing vs. doing the politically expedient thing. It's almost like people want to forget the 1960s ever happened.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. That's what Clinton did in '92 - you know how THAT worked out.

If we do NOT prosecute blatant violations of US and international law, the law breakers will be back in another 4-8 years, stronger than ever.

And if you're worried about how the media will present it, just have congress re-establish the media regulations that kept the top 5 media corporations from speaking with a single voice - diversity in the media will mute the framing.

[Chan790]

28. Admittedly, I see it as a "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" sort of thing

If we prosecute, we take it in the ass for our "witch-hunt". If we don't prosecute, the bastards come back in 8 years.

I'm wagering that whatever we can get through, they'll be stuck with. It's like Social Security, they hate Social Security but the American people love it...so they can't scrap it, even though they want to. If we can get a nationalized health-care solution, no matter how much they hate it, they're stuck with it. If they rescind it or throttle it, the cost will be steep for them.

If we can reinstate protections for the American worker, they're stuck with it. If we can protect people from predatory lending, they're stuck with those regulations. (I doubt anybody will be getting anything which even looks like deregulation passed again anytime soon.) If we can get tougher energy standards, they'll be stuck with them.

I'd rather terraform the entire playing field under their feet than pick off some small time crooks. Even if we were to prosecute, there is no way that we ever will get anything to stick against the people worth going after. Doug Feith or Dick Armitage isn't worth the effort. You're not going to get Bush, Cheney, Rice or Rumsfeld...it's a pipe dream. If we even got close, some good soldier would take the hit to protect them, just like Scooter Libby and Ollie North did. You can wager that Karl Rove would take a bullet, let alone a short jail sentence, for the former Presi-dunce.

[Birthmark]

14. It's the first priority

We can to some extent operate without an economy, or with a severely depressed economy. However, we won't last long without laws and moral values.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Top priority. Because of the possibility of a wide restructuring of government as a whole.

An in depth investigation and trial would (hopefully) bring to light the corruption that brought us into an unnecessary and fruitless war in Iraq and lead to questions about our place in the world as "policemen" which in reality is neo-colonialism.

That both major political parties were accomplices is obvious and should be brought to light so that questions can be asked about our nations priorities and responsibilities in the world.

[ThomWV]

17. It must be top priority at the Dept. of Justice, but it can be lower on Obama's list

Look, the President will devote little of his attention to this matter if he's smart, but if he's equally smart he will encourage the Justice Department to take this as far as it goes, both up and down the chain of command.

That said, I think the matter of domestic spying is far more important, but it will have to be repaired by the Congress - through its thumb on the purse if that's what it takes.

[mod mom]

18. Top priority but Obama should leave it to Justice.

[Dr Fate]

19. I vote #4. n/t

n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Top priority. The other matters are items of policy, and will (unfortunately)

be subject to compromises and horse trading - politics as usual. Torture is a matter of violation of US and international law, and we CANNOT allow blatant law breaking to come second to policy disagreements.

EDIT:

...or worse, to be SEEN as policy disagreements.

[cali]

27. aarrrgh. dismaying to see so many duers wanting Obama to

act like bush and manage the Justice Department.

[lucretia54]

31. Along with prosecuting torture, STOP it, everywhere!

[bottomtheweaver]

32. Tippy top. If that's all he accomplished, he'd go down as one of the best.

He could make it the centerpiece of his entire eight years -- and if he was serious, he could probably have that and more -- because if he kept drilling down he'd expose the whole corrupt election machinery and media fakery that's kept the nation deluded while they're being fleeced.

Oh that he had the brass to let this thing play out the way the law, the people, and common decency have been demanding!

[jmowreader]

33. They hired all those people for a reason

There is simply no reason they can't work on healthcare, the economy, Don Siegelman, throwing the Bushies in jail, the environment and whatever else they need to do...all at the same time!

[LWolf]

35. Other:

It's in the top group. I don't rank any action that is important and necessary as more or less important than another.

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare; 100% public financing for all candidates; a modern, strictly enforced fairness doctrine; the end of NAFTA/CAFTA; the end of NCLB, the "standards and accountability movement," and all other plans for de-regulating and privatizing public ed, including merit pay and charter schools; RE-regulation of most of the deregulation that has occurred in my lifetime; the end of war as an instrument of international policy; the end of corporate person-hood; the restoration of civil liberties, the prosecution of corporate and government criminals; excising religious influence on government and public policy; a living wage; shrinking socio-economic gaps; responsible environmental stewardship and food production; new, modern, stronger and fiercely enforced anti-trust laws....

all of those are equally important to me. They are interconnected, and they must go together to achieve the intended end result.