Regarding torture and murder. There is a point at which I'll give up on the USA

[Cyrano]

Let's assume for a moment that there will be a full investigation of the torture and war crimes that took place under the Bush/Cheney regime.

Then let's assume that it's proven beyond any doubt that torture and war crimes did take place on orders that came from the top (Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et al).

And then let's further assume that a decision is made to not prosecute them.

It's highly possible that the first two scenarios will take place, but that there will be no prosecutions. I believe that under no circumstances will these criminals ever be held accountable for their crimes. That is the point at which I will finally give up on our country as the "Beacon of freedom to the world."

If these people are not made to pay for their crimes, why keep the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in airtight environments to protect them from decaying? Why not just toss them out and drop the illusion that the United States holds a "special" place in the history of the world?

My statements are not just a result of emotional exhaustion due to the past eight years (or the past 30 years since St. Ronnie came to power). The view I hold is that the Dems now have sufficient power to bring about justice.

What are the Democrats afraid of? Limbaugh? Hannity? Gingrich? Boehner? Beck? The rest of the clowns who keep piling out of that teensy circus car? The fringe lunatics who will get pissed at them? Those 10 or 12 voters in Alabama and Mississippi who will desert them? Beats me.

But here's the thing. If the Democratic Party fails to hold Bush&Co responsible for war crimes, I'm dropping the delusion that we live in a democracy. Letting these criminals off the hook will forever define us as a very large, powerful and dangerous banana republic. We will still have our nuclear weapons, but we'll have lost our souls. Every civilized country on Earth will rightfully fear us.

[stillcool]

1. Patience is a virtue..

Please take a look at this article for some perspective. An excerpt here, but it doesn't do justice to the analysis and information in the article.

Of Black Holes and Radio Silence

Monday 20 April 2009

by: Elizabeth de la Vega

A former prosecutor examines the special prosecutor debate.



We must have a prosecution eventually, but we are not legally required to publicly initiate it now and we should not, as justifiable as it is. I'm not concerned about political fallout. What's good or bad for either party has no legitimate place in this calculus. My sole consideration is litigation strategy: I want us to succeed. And our best hope of doing that is to unflinchingly assess - just as any lawyer would do when contemplating choices of action in a case - what we would have tomorrow if we got what we think we want today. We should obviously think twice about pursuing an intermediate goal, however satisfying it may appear, if it would be counterproductive in the long term. There are times when it's smarter to wait before taking a prosecutive step and this is one of them.
---------------------------------------

First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It's a move that has so many downsides - and holds so few real benefits - that I would be more inclined to question President Obama's motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter - a Republican senator from Pennsylvania - has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse - Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively - would prefer a public inquiry.


What is it? Well, for starters, there is - under currently available US law - no such thing as a truly independent prosecutor. There has not been since 1999, when the independent counsel statute expired. Accordingly, regardless of the title given this individual - and whether she were tapped from inside or outside the Justice Department - this appointee would, at a minimum, be required to follow internal DOJ policies and her delegated authority could be revoked at any time. (The regulations that authorize appointing a non-DOJ attorney as "special counsel" - found at 28 C.F.R. Part 600 et. seq - actually make possible substantially more attorney general oversight into prosecutorial decisions.)

Under existing federal law, in other words, the notion of a special prosecutor who would be entirely free from political and institutional influence is illusory. Given that fact - and that it is ordinarily an extremely dumb, not to mention unethical, idea to announce investigations - when an administration does announce that it is naming a "special counsel" of any sort, it is largely a public-relations maneuver. The president thereby appears to be committed to the rule of law, but is, in fact, parking an extremely inconvenient problem in a remote and inaccessible lot.

Once this happens, all who wish to avoid the issue have a ready excuse. The president can refuse to comment because there is an ongoing criminal investigation. (Remember Bush's press person, Scott McClennan?) And members of Congress from either party can look the other way, because - again - there is an ongoing criminal investigation. It's a perfect dodge.

http://www.truthout.org/042009R

[Fumesucker]

2. I gave up on the US as..

"Beacon of freedom to the world." When our incarceration rate became the highest on the planet, bar none.

I haven't seen any reason to change my mind during the intervening years.

[stray cat]

3. So how does giving up actually work - emigrate?

[Fumesucker]

5. Hope...

Give up hope..

Sort of like this..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Join with Tom Paine.

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." Thomas Paine