Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

John Cusack's Email to Obama's Blackberry: You're in Power, Don't Let Cheney's Torture Crew off the Hook

By John Cusack, Huffington Post. Posted May 19, 2009.


We can't whitewash institutionalized torture, trash any conceivable notion of the rule of law, and call that 'looking forward.'
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If I had the President's Blackberry, I would send this.

President Obama,

On Wednesday you reversed your administration's promise to finally release pictures of detainee abuse.

The release of the photos was won by ACLU lawyers who have fought to bring to light the full extent of the brutality and torture that U.S. Army and intelligence services have perpetrated against human beings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and at CIA "black sites" around the world. Torture that was sanctioned and effectively legalized under the former administration, and that, if we are to be honest, most Americans knew -- or should have known -- was being carried out in our names.

Only now is the knowledge starting to give rise to the widespread outrage and calls for accountability that such crimes against humanity deserve. Growing numbers of citizens are demanding the independent investigation and prosecution of the members of the Bush administration responsible for the vitiation of fundamental legal principles like habeas corpus and the flagrant violation of both international and domestic laws against torture. The pundits, hacks and shills who dismiss these calls for investigation and prosecution -- integral to any serious definition of accountability -- disgrace themselves and their country.

The situation in which we now find ourselves is so bizarre, it's hard to fathom. New revelations continue to surface -- we learn that Vice President Cheney's office ordered and specified how a man was to be tortured, and mounting evidence suggests the United States tortured to extract false confessions that would justify preemptive war on Iraq. Yet a Democratic president leads a Democratic congress to whitewash institutionalized torture and in effect trash any conceivable notion of the rule of law, all in the name of "looking forward."

And now we hear that the administration will block the release of new evidence in this hideous criminal conspiracy. Now you, the president who came to power with promises of transparency and change, say you don't want to release the photos because they "will further inflame anti-American sentiment" and endanger U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The ACLU lucidly replies:

"It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known -- whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them."

Maybe, Mr. President, you've succumbed to all the fear-mongering that the Bush administration and Republican Party sold for so long. Most Democrats have been silent enablers so consistently -- maybe we've all bought into it. We know the truth but we still can't admit it; just as for years signs and traces of torture performed in our name were there, we saw without seeing, and knew without knowing. When those first photos from Abu Ghraib were broadcast around the world five years ago, we told ourselves the sadism was the work of just a few maniacs. When we heard the privatization frenzy that spread like a cancer through the Bush years extended even to interrogation -- effectively making torture its own nightmarish "cottage industry" -- we looked away. And now our first official response is to let it all slide... and just move on.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: human rights, barack obama, john cusack, blackberry

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Hell He Can't
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on May 19, 2009 12:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama will ride out the storm until 2011, then he'll goose the economy and legalize marijuana and get reelected.

I got you, babe...


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» too much money in prisons Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Barack Obama: A Progressive Nightmare ...
Posted by: mmckinl on May 19, 2009 1:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we are, imploring the President to uphold the rule of law. This is NOT "Change We Can Believe In". We've just had 8 years without the rule of law, but it seems we have many more ahead ...

Torture Investigations, War, The Banks, Health Care, Coal Mining ... all betrayals of policy by Obama. There seems no end to his duplicity and the long term damage he is causing. You can't be a Progressive and Pro- Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Obama's a War Criminal. Posted by: Karlh
» Usually, we agree, but,,, Posted by: jleman
» You're serious? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: You're serious? Posted by: babs
» You Voted For Change Posted by: left_libertarian
Dick Cheney's Tortured Logic
Posted by: Tom Degan on May 19, 2009 1:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's put things in their proper perspective, Shall we?

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (both failed oil men) were desperate to seize control of a country which possessed the second or third largest oil reserves on the entire planet. But before they could do that. they needed to prove to the clueless American people the following little bits of misinformation:

1. The ruler of that country, Saddam Hussein (Remember him?) was harboring dangerous Weapons of Mass Destruction.

2. He was somehow in cahoots with Osama bin Laden in the atrocity that was committed on September 11, 2001,

3. He was an imminent threat to the peace and security of the free world in general and the United States in particular.

The only problem was that they needed one crucial thing to make their case which they were seriously lacking - EVIDENCE. So how would they be able to get the evidence they needed so badly? Extract it from hapless Prisoners of War by any means necessary. Torture was the means they used to achieve their ends. As a result, nearly five-thousand American kids - not to mention as many as a million Iraqi men, women and little children - are dead.

They were determined to invade a country that was a danger to no one but itself. They fabricated the reasons for that invasion out of thin air - much in the same way Adolf Hitler did when he invaded Poland on September 3, 1939. They cherry-picked a mole hill of evidence that claimed Saddam was a threat to America and completely ignored the mountain of evidence which conclusively proved that he was nothing of the sort. They wanted that fucking oil, baby! And they were determined to grab it - come hell or high waterboard.

I don't know about you, but I've got a funny feeling that when the American people finally figure all of this stuff out, they're going to be just a tad peeved, don'cha think?

Dick Cheney's Tortured Logic

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree with you, Emmories.... Posted by: Tom Degan
» Ask A Soldier? Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: Dick Cheney's Tortured Logic Posted by: Psioga1jxg
» Hitler was not as dumb as Bush Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: You Forgot the Role of 9/11 Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Dick Cheney's Tortured Logic Posted by: BulldogRedeemer
observer
Posted by: davy on May 19, 2009 2:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I sent this to the White House and I hope many others do also. John is correct. Here's hoping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: observer Posted by: When In Doubt
» White House Email Address Posted by: DawnL
» RE: White House Email Address Posted by: greenPuker
The morals of a thief
Posted by: Perry Logan on May 19, 2009 2:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear John,

As you make your entreaties, remember that Barack Obama and his people stole the nomination from the voters' preferred candidate.

You are appealing to the morals of a thief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oh, YOU MEAN KUCINICH! Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
» RE: oh, YOU MEAN KUCINICH! Posted by: weslen1
why can't we the people take action through a national grand jury?
Posted by: Suzon on May 19, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is evidence in the public domain which could be presented to a grand jury. Although they cannot convict, grand juries can produce indictments.

A previous grand jury in San Diego a few years ago lacked moral authority because it was self-selected. What is needed is a randomly selected grand jury and you can do this by creating a template and applying it consistently in every state.

To avoid corruption, the identities of the jurors must be kept secret until after a decision has been reached. There is a way that this can be done.

The responsibility is as much ours as Obama's. Of course, you have to trust the people. A good way to develop a moral outlook is to make the first task of the national grand jury the drawing up of an oath of service. The jurors would have to consider what their duty was and who they owed it to.

Ask not what Obama can do for us, but what we can do for Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Blush...
Posted by: adp3d on May 19, 2009 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...of this new administration is beginning to wane...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Show me Consent to Release by the Detainees, ACLU
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 19, 2009 4:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those are pictures depicting the humilating and torturous acts committed On them. Is it possible the men in those photos may feel violated once again? Will it make any difference to them that their faces and genitalia are obscured- will they (or their family,Friends, neighbors)not recognize them regardless.Was this not enough to endure the first time? Then to beware that photos are available, then know the entire world will see.
WE often hear the concerns a Rape victim will have to endure a Defense attorney dragging out every facet of THEIR lives. The Potential for the Rape Victim to be essential Raped by the System in it's 'Due Process'.
Stop here for just one moment folks- Are we not missing a Major point in the blind zeal for Transparency? Isn't this the same shortsighted, self absorbed fanaticism which got US into these messes to begin with.Some twisted sense of Justice?
Personally I find this push for the photos to be released to the World Wide Media nothing more than morbid curiosity,and misdirected revenge, on the part of the American Public. Let's be honest there were plenty of people who wanted tosee the pictures of Nicole Brown With her head nearly servered off- but cooler, and more respectful, minds prevailed.
Aren't we demanding these mens Civil Liberties be violated once again? Is it possible that in their culture such mass exposure of these would be as egregious as the initial violations of their human rights to diginity,privacy.
Please ACLU, tell me what these Detainee want.
I, for one,would only want photos of me in such a situation to be viewed by those who can actually bring these criminals to justice- not to be displayed on the cable new 24/7 loop, merely satisifying 'nobody's' sick insatiable morbid curiosity, sense of vindication, and certianly not to jack up ratings.
Stop! Find a bucket of Water -far left Fringe- Your hair is once again set on fire and your are running down the street in your wild Abandon.If you are Truely Human rights advocates, it's a good idea to ask what the thoughts and wishes are of those you claim your are defending. Otherwise you are merely doing a 'Bush' and forcing your own will on them.That's not being a Champion of a cause thats self righteousness with utter disregard to those you wish to 'save'.
Obama needs only provide those photos to the Courts who will be hearing these Detainees or Defendent cases. I,would rather have these Courts be comprised of International Representatives who can dismiss the demands and undue influences of the Politicos and the Public to determine the truth and level an unhindered and uncompromised judgement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No court will view these photos Posted by: leafsong1
I Fail to See
Posted by: Kathy-B on May 19, 2009 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How the release of the photos is letting Dick off the hook. He's not ordering them destroyed. They may be admissable evidence in court.

The Dick is setting himself up so that he can not be prosecuted by letting everyone know he authorized torture. THINK ABOUT IT - since he's gone so public how could anyone claim impartiality to prosecute?

I myself don't need or want to see more pictures of blood & gore & think those of you that do are a sad lot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» you are so right. Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: you are so right. Posted by: greenPuker
Truth Commission Not Prosecution
Posted by: eyendall on May 19, 2009 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Justice Department could never get a conviction out of this republican dominated Supreme Court. The result would be a "not-guilty" decision and the confirmation of the extreme Presidential powers and privileges claimed by Bush.

The long judicial process would not be cathartic but would invoke extreme and protracted political conflict and totally distract from and disrupt Obama's reformist agenda. If you think the current Republican hysterical "outrage" over Pelosi is something, just wait for the reaction to criminal prosecutions of these torture masterminds.

Obama is intelligent. Give him some credit for thinking problems through and weighing consequences.

Some form of truth commission led by a single respected non-partisan individual having power to confer immunity in exchange for complete and truthful testimony would get the facts out and leave judgment to the people, not the courts.

These people can be hurt in the pocket book by boycotting the companies and institutions which pay them, and the media which carry these companies' advertisements and publish their books.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow!
Posted by: SocoLoco on May 19, 2009 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I often ask John Cusak's opinion before I make a major purchase. Waiting to hear his thoughts of whether I should purchase a Blu-ray DVD player.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How sad! Posted by: robert.noll
» How sad! Posted by: robert.noll
Question for Obama
Posted by: Wilde on May 19, 2009 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you discovered what happened to the 2.3 trillion taxpayer dollars that Rumsfeld reported missing from the Pentagon the day before 9-11?

I have a fairly good idea where some of that money went.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X63CQ-dXkwU

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Israel's gifts to America Posted by: weathered
Anarchy
Posted by: LMNOP on May 19, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The state has violated the social contract that we implicitly agreed to, with which good citizens have until now willingly and cheerfully complied with, and which once bound us together as a people.

If American law isn't applied equally, including to Bush and Cheney, then the moral imperative to obey it, the most important of all of the reasons to do so, is invalidated.

Until and unless that changes, there is no such moral imperative any longer for any American citizen to comply with any law that it serves him or her to violate.

Yes, there are still reasons to obey some of the laws some of the time even when it would be expedient to flout them, such as the consequences of being caught. But it means that those caught violating American law can no longer be rightfully thought of as immoral or antisocial, merely foolish or unlucky.

I spit on you, American law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rule of Law was never more than a myth. Posted by: login@bugmenot.com
thank you
Posted by: astudent on May 19, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Mr. Cusack. You said what I thought, much more lucidly and vividly than I could have hoped to. I suggest, since we can't e-mail President Obama's BlackBerry, that you print this and send it via USPS, not only to the president, but to every member of the House and Senate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In related news...
Posted by: dover23 on May 19, 2009 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just sent an e-mail to CEO of McDonalds asking him to denounce the use of dead cows as food and also to CEO of Exxon to stop drilling for oil.

I suggest you do too! Democracy in Action!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In related news... Posted by: Starfall Deception
9/11 was staged for this same purpose!
Posted by: Alan8 on May 19, 2009 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that it's being revealed that the Bush Administration consistently lied to us about its criminal activities, it's appropriate to reexamine their lies about 9/11.

People involved in the "investigation" are coming forward and revealing the official story was a "whitewash", and the 9/11 commission considered involving the Justice Department about lies in the Pentagon's testimony, and other government lies about the events that day.

The overall sequence of events is starting to take shape:

1. Cheney and the oil corporations (his secret energy task force) wanted Iraq's oil, and drew up plans to divide it.

2. 9/11 was staged to provide the justification for their takeover of our country, and any illegal activities for "national security".

3. Prisoners were tortured to provide the "link" between Iraq and 9/11.

4. Iraq was invaded for their oil.

http://nyccan.org/ is a organization of New York citizens getting a referendum on the ballot in November for an investigation to address the still unanswered questions on 9/11.

This investigation will have subpoena power! They already have 35,000 signatures, and need our help to get this done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Get cancer Posted by: Borgar
Don't Blame Me...
Posted by: drhibbart on May 19, 2009 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul. You remember, he ran for President. Or maybe you don't, because he was banned from many Republican debates and was not allowed to speak at the Republican National Convention unlike all of the other Republican candidates, because he would not endorse John McCain. Or maybe it's because after 8 years of Bush the so called Republican (from the part of the Republican party that's been in hiding in South America since 1944), people refused to even consider voting for anyone running on the Republican ticket. It might be because the media at first ignored him, and then when he got too big to ignore, they simply wrote him off as a libertarian lunatic. Most likely it's because you believed the television when they told you he had no chance. There was one person running for President in 2008 on one of the 2 major party tickets (guess who?) that talked about the need to restore the rule of law, start following the Constitution again, leave Iraq, Afghanistan, and...get this, the other 130+ countries that we have our military in currently (there's only around 190 countries in the world, sound like an empire?), stop our insane deficit spending, end the Federal Reserve (did you know that the Federal Reserve is a private bank?), and in general restore some sense of sanity to this country. While Ron Paul did not win the Presidency, he is still working through his grassroots campaign (www.canmpaignforliberty.com) to restore this country to the rule of law. If you're sick of the government not following the Constitution and the rule of law, check out the website.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Don't Blame Me... Posted by: drhibbart
» RE: Don't Blame Me... Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Don't Blame Me... Posted by: hms2004
COLD HARD EVIDENCE
Posted by: jstuv on May 19, 2009 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Should the crimes of treason, by the Bush/Chaney Administration, be overlooked, then these crimes of high treason will be repeated in future administrations. The Allies conducted the Nürenberg Trials (in 1945 to 1949) for several reasons:

A) To make aware that these crimes were actually committed,
B) To examine HOW these crimes were able to be committed,
C) Who committed these crimes and
D) To punish the criminals.

Should the guilty not be punished, then, their Criminal Acts would be absolved and could easily be repeated. There would not be any justice.

“The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government.”

Should the Bush/Chaney Administration (alleged) criminals not be prosecuted, not be brought to trial and not found guilty, then, like the Ronald Reagan Republican group, they will be glorified, deified and praised.

With ALL the evidence available: Eyewitnesses, Documents, Dead Bodies, Remnants of Death Camps, Newsreel clips, piles of clothes, piles of shoes, piles of hair, piles of eyeglasses, piles of gold teeth –COLD HARD EVIDENCE-, there are Holocaust Deniers being celebrated, glorified and believed.

So, too, these (alleged) criminals will be praised and glorified for future generations.
We will have not have learned from history –and the American society will repeat this debacle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: COLD HARD EVIDENCE Posted by: BulldogRedeemer
» RE: COLD HARD EVIDENCE Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: COLD HARD EVIDENCE Posted by: login@bugmenot.com
John Cusack, you rock!
Posted by: Pirate1 on May 19, 2009 9:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is spot on. Sadly, I doubt the Prez himself ever reads things sent to him but you'll probably make the lower White House staff in charge of opening mail squirm a lot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truth will out
Posted by: Archie1954 on May 19, 2009 9:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every word in this article is true and I endorse it wholeheartedly!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Gives A Crap
Posted by: jaglover on May 19, 2009 9:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Cusack has to say about ANYTHING? Oh and exactly who was it who told you that he has the ability to email the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? Did the President tell you that? Nobody gives a shit what a damn rich actor has to say. GET A REAL TOPIC!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who Gives A Crap Posted by: marjani
» RE: Who Gives A Crap Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: Who Gives A Crap Posted by: peacefullaim1
That's a No-Win
Posted by: marjani on May 19, 2009 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pres Obama can't do that without at least 85-90% of this country backing him. No President in America's history has ever gone after other presidents and vice presidents for doing something they were ordered to do by a president and commander in chief, and allowed to do by the US Supreme Court who could have said NO WAY are we doing that.

This nation rests on and abides by social upheaval and for something like this to happen, the vast majority of America would have to back it.

Pres Obama has had to make a lot of sacrifices and compromises, but this is still America and he's still a black man who will be persecuted from now until Kingdom Come if he even takes a step in that direction. Like all presidents before him, he is a public servant--he's not in charge to the extent of being a dictator like George W Bush tried to be. His will bows to that of the people, by the people, for the people.

If America wants justice against these tortures, America will have to go get it and then get Pres Obama to sign off on it. That's how public policy works, now and in the future. It's not up to him, it's up to at least 80% of America or better to DEMAND it and put Pres Obama in a position where he has no choice because the people have spoken.

He is a man like any other man, not a god, not a superhero, not an obamessiah like the Republican Party tried to make him out to be. America has to want it. That is the only way Pres Obama can deliver it.

He wanted to be president to make a difference, but he's not an all-powerful Island, folks. If WE don't want it bad enough, there's not much he can do because if he does it and it backfires, he'll be all alone with the people who pushed him to do it saying, "Well, it really was YOUR decision after all."

He's not an idiot. He does this, he's going to be left to go it alone.

Get a petition circled and cycled around this country. There are over 300 million American citizens living here, get at least 200-250 million signatures on it and see if he don't have to act then.

Until then...he can only do what this nation allows him and there are people who aren't going to sit back and let him handle Gitmo like it should be handled, no matter how much he may want to. He said it himself, but his power as President is limited at best.

If America wants it, America has to go get it and get Pres Obama to sign off on it. He said he wants to see justice prevail. Question is: How bad does AMERICA (or at least the majority of Americans) want it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The best and most relevant comment Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: That's a No-Win Posted by: soulrebeljc
» RE: That's a No-Win Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: That's a No-Win Posted by: retread
Sumpthins gotta give
Posted by: willymack on May 19, 2009 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like John Cusack and his sister, Joan. They're both bright and talented entertainers. It doesn't stop with entertainment with John. His astute observations and timely commentary help to illumunate the peril our nation is in-not from phony terrorists-but from greedy corporatists and crooked politicians. Constant pressure through emails, calls, and letters to the President may yet sway him to do what's RIGHT, no matter how repugnant and distasteful it may be to him. His priorities are skewed toward the economy while the evil bastards who commited treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity thumb their noses at us and dare us to do something about it. Something's got to give, either the President's stubborn refusal to prosecute the bushie evildoers, or the future of our nation.












































ts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sumpthins gotta give Posted by: BulldogRedeemer
» Somethin duh...is happenun Posted by: outsideagitator
» Good Job willymack Posted by: outsideagitator
BulldogRedemer
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer on May 19, 2009 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Cusack is just another Hollywood political zealot that disgraces himself by thinking because of his fame as a fine actor, he knows anything pertinent about geo-politics. These people deal in the world of "make believe", and are not entrusted with all the facts and ramifications of under currents in the real world. Living in LA he should know that his city was spared the tragedy and horror of a second 9/11 attack due to EIT's.
The uber-liberal ACLU has NOT made lucid justifications for releasing photos of activities for which the implementers have already been punished. My old fashioned Mother had a colloquial saying for such protestations, "They are stirring up an old turd just to make a stink". They are on a political witch hunt against those that support a strong, safe and traditional America.
EIT hearings will provide nothing new except confirm that: lives were saved, Pelosi knew and didn’t object, weaken sovereignty by further endangering our military, inflaming mutual partisan hatreds, and set the stage for future political recrimination trials. Sane people don’t go around labeling people war criminals; otherwise all wartime presidents would be so labeled. Some left-wing loons are already calling Obama a war criminal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BulldogRedemer Posted by: babs
The Investigaton Begins With 9/11
Posted by: edgar_michel on May 19, 2009 11:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cheney's Crimes may have begun long before Abu Ghraib

Cheney may have had 2,972 American sacrificed in order to bring about the remaking of the maps of the Middle East that led to Abu Ghraid. Consider the Following:

Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.

See:

http://www.oilempire.us/911.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/wargames.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Investigaton Begins With 9/11 Posted by: BulldogRedeemer
You don't need the President's Blackberry
Posted by: Esperanto on May 19, 2009 1:44 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If John Cusack wants to send this letter to Obama, there is an open website where this can be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like Chomsky said...
Posted by: ZPaul on May 19, 2009 6:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter so much who's in power, but the pressure the people can bring to bear on who is in power.

That's why real power has always been effectively kept out of the hands of the majority and always -- always -- been in the hands of a small group of the rich. And they will do everything possible to keep the American people from even thinking about organizing and doing something to change that.

They've done a pretty good job of it so far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Still to early?
Posted by: chabnormal on May 22, 2009 4:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it time to start talking about impeaching Obama, yet? He is complicite in war crimes. I believe that is grounds for impeachment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Still to early? Posted by: BillSamuel
He's not in power
Posted by: BillSamuel on May 22, 2009 5:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama very deliberately chose to be bought by the corporate elite. He's not in power. He's fully owned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

makaainana
Posted by: Makaainana on May 22, 2009 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama's mantra of, "I want to look forward", is just a slick motto.

He knows that if he opens the torture box the scandal will go to so many places and to so many people that he will be awash in investigations, blame, court cases, hearings and recriminations that he will LOSE CONTROL of the MEDIA and HIS ability to fix the economy and impose his changes.

He has decided that these things are more important than prosecuting torturers.

He also knows that should he open this Pandora's box, the CIA would be in disarray, the military full of resentment and blame, and he would no longer be able to be the great leader of a great nation.

He also is probably hearing from these bodies that the war on terror would be severely damaged if not lost during all the national and world distraction.

That's why he keeps saying look forward, which really means look the other way.

Unfortunately ignoring the torture problem is just like an infection that unless you open it up and cut it out, it will keep festering. Maybe not during his administration, but in some future one, it will erupt again, and probably be worse.

When the future eruption of the infection occurs if he is alive to see it, he will know that he could have prevented the additional shame to his country if he would have prosecuted at least Cheney and the enabling lawyers.

Without any prosecutions he will then be in the awful position of having to say what Cheney is saying now. He will be saying, "I kept the country safe on my watch...", but he will know in his heart that he could have done better and saved all the additional lost lives.

He will also be in the position of President Bush. He will have to sit and watch a new president clean up the mess that he left for HIS successor.

His only hope is that Attorney General could handle the investigation and prosecutions in a manner that would be so completely legal, so untainted by politics and with such serious gravity that He, Obama, could stand aside from them and go on with his agenda for the Nation.

Unfortunately for him and the Nation, I am afraid this is a gamble that He is unwilling to take.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John Cussack is a M o r o n.
Posted by: knight on May 28, 2009 9:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the hell,why is this man so concerned with the the terrorists are treated,human beings? hah,they stopped being so the moment they became my enemies,I don t talk to my enemies,I don t hug my enemies,I destroy my enemies,like cockroaches they are,I know they 'd cut my head off if they could,so I will use whatever means necessary to extract information from them,water boarding torture? hah,let me have them and i show them torture,I am as sadistic as they are,they killed 3000 of my fellow citizens,i d killed 10000 of theirs, this habeas corpus crap,does john C even knows what that is? i doubt it,frankly John Cussack is a winnie with the back bone of a noddle,that s why he doesn t fight wars,we do,I did and do,I don t need or want your concern,just get the hell out of the way,I am a soldier,ready to serve and fight,I do exist for,and i enlisted to kill the enemy,destroy it,send him to hell if i can,if I die in the process,hell,at least i ll do my best to kill as many before they kill me,that is my purpose and duty,the hell with this moron John Cussack,once he has walked one day in my shoes,or being in the middle of a firefight,I will listen to him,for now he is just an stupid moron,whose opinion is worthless,if he ever got the Chief's em address,the chief would ignore him just as well....stupid progressives,don t fight,stand for nothing,and yet they want secutity...bunch of sissies. you make me so angry...I d say to Cheney, let s kick their asses one more time,the hell with the ACLU...did the aclu ever fought in a war? did they ever defended a post? any of their associates did? Didn t think so....go suck on a pebble...geeeezzz i am so angry with these bastard progressives or whatever the hell they call themselves,traitors is more like it.. I am a soldier and i will fight,and fight til I am dead....I will protect Cheney and the Bush Administration if it ever came to that, millions of us would do.international courts and opinions are worthless to me if they are opposite of what s best for America.I will listen to their opinion,but will disregard it just the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement