AlterNet / By Liliana Segura
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 222

Thousands of Pages of Evidence and a Quarter Million Signatures: What Will It Take For Attorney General to Prosecute Torture Crimes?

Amid citizen outrage and news that torture was used to extract a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, Eric Holder won't say if he intends to prosecute.
April 24, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

By the time Attorney General Eric Holder took his seat before a Congressional subcommittee on Thursday, the Bush torture program had broken wide open. In the past week alone, hundreds of pages in declassified legal memos and Congressional reports had blown the lid off the previous administration's harsh interrogation policies to reveal -- in addition to grisly new details about what the U.S. government did to prisoners in its custody -- a chronology of the program's history that implicated the most senior government officials, including Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and of course the former president. What's more, it appeared that the torture of high-value detainees in 2002 and 2003 was, at least in part, the direct consequence of Bush officials' need to extract a link -- fictitious or otherwise -- between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

Damning stuff, to be sure. Yet watching Holder's testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, where his office was met with a coalition of activists delivering petitions carrying 250,000 signatures from Americans who support appointing an independent prosecutor to investigate Bush's crimes, it would be hard to guess that it came in a week that saw such a flood of evidence of human rights violations and war crimes come to light. Reiterating his contention (following the initial release of legal memos last week outlining the rationale for Bush era torture) that "those in the intelligence community who acted reasonably and in good faith are not going to be prosecuted," Holder also reassured the committee members that he "will not permit the criminalization of policy differences" -- an almost superfluous response to one of the bogus conservative talking points that has sprung up -- the notion that holding accountable lawyers who authorized flagrantly illegal techniques against U.S. held prisoners will have a "chilling effect" on advisers' opinions. But, he said, "it is my responsibility as attorney general to enforce the law. ... If I see evidence of wrongdoing I will pursue it to the full extent of the law." Very well, but with virtually no references to the avalanche of evidence that emerged this week, Holder's words, like President Obama's pep-rally style speech before the CIA last week and the hearing itself (which, in fairness, was held to discuss the 2010 budget of the DOJ), largely belied the severity of what has been revealed in the past week.

To recap: Holder's appearance came one week to the day after the release of the infamous OLC memos, which describe in chilling detail the methodology of the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program. The documents sparked fresh revulsion in the media and blogosphere over the Bush administration's torture program, while also prompting renewed calls for the Obama administration to investigate and hold accountable those who authorized it. Despite President Obama's immediate announcement that CIA rank and file would not face charges -- "it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution" -- online and in the pages of the New York Times, the call for accountability was deafening. From the push to impeach former OLC lawyer turned judge Jay Bybee, who currently enjoys a seat on the federal bench, to the heckling of former OLC attorney John Yoo (the veritable godfather of the OLC's pro-torture rationale) at a California college where audience members shouted "war criminal" as he took the stage, people were outraged.

Then, on Tuesday night, the Senate Armed Services Committee released its 263-page "Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees In U.S. Custody," an exhaustive look at the Bush administration's torture program following September 11th. Based on over 200,000 pages of classified and unclassified documents and interviews with more than 70 people (mostly Pentagon officials), the document is more than a catalog and condemnation of the torture program. It officially upends the dishonest narrative that has been used to excuse the abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody ever since the first photographs of hooded prisoners left Abu Ghraib. "The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," read the report, using the very language Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld employed to dismiss the abuse in 2005. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority."

The Senate Armed Services report revealed a number of other significant details, including a more complete chronology of the development and authorization of the torture program. Writing on the New Yorker website, investigative journalist Jane Mayer wrote that the Senate report makes clear that "the C.I.A. and the military were preparing a blueprint for brutality months before they even had captured a single high-level Al Qaeda operative." While the OLC memos have long been understood to have been designed to grant legal cover to practices already in place, this fact would seem to carry significant legal implications even if they are taken at face value.


View as a single page
 
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: iraq, 9/11, cia, torture, al qaeda, al qaeda, new york times, dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, condoleezza rice, john yoo, prosecutions, jay bybee, carl levin, eric holder, torture memos, jonathan landay

comments COMMENTS ( 222 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

I am going to make a bet...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Apr 24, 2009 12:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that nobody important will ever be prosecuted. Lindsey England (sp?) types - maybe but nobody above that.

Yes, it was done in Nuremberg but there is a story that Goering commented the trial was held because Third Reich lost the war, not because they murdered millions etc.

In short Nazis went on trial when they were out of power, Republicans of Bush's former administration are still in power. After all the Republican party is nothing but one half of american ruling oligarchy.

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

» Don't say that!. Posted by: willymack
» RE: I am going to make a bet... Posted by: LaurelAnn
» RE: OK, I'll take your bet Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I am going to make a bet... Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney

Comments are closed-

If They Don't...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: laurenaislinn on Apr 24, 2009 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
prosecute because there are a few repugnicans still defending Bush (fewer than the # of counterpart political buffoons on TV & radio) then the American people Will See that it is done. How could we force Nixon to resign & prosecute & jail the White House conspirators in a trial that ultimately led not just to COINTELPRO? How could we ignore that these same people attempted to stop Daniel Ellseberg from releasing the Pentagon Papers in which the CIA showed the Vietnam War as based on false info and unwinnable?
The American people saw their trust betrayed and their 'president', who said he could do no wrong, caught red-handed. They demanded prosecution. Our leaders of the past had the courage and we-including those who fought against us over Vietnam-demanded justice.
Now that the 60s generation holds the power how could we possibly shrink from anything but full disclosure of all crimes comitted by the Bush Administration? We intended great things when finally in power. Are we now going to shrink from our duties? I doubt it. The Congress and Justice Dept are beginning to show some actual backbone. With each new disclosure, they find they have little choice.
This has gone far beyond Iran-Contra, an impeachable offense & high crime itself, during a 'feel good & partriotic' denial of the truth the people apparently 'needed' to recoup. That has now been shown to have been the beginning of a succession of gangster-governments that have brought this country to the brink of collapse.
The Bush-Cheney world was the epitomy of criminal delusion. It is over now: as was proclaimed 40 yr ago, "The Whole World Is Watching". Obama and Holder cannot run from That audience. If they try the millions who demand justice will force their hand.

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

Comments are closed-

What will it take? It will take Americans realizing they were lied to about 9/11!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pfgetty on Apr 24, 2009 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can show all you want to to Americans that torture was used, but most Americans, reminded of their fear of more terror attacks, will realize that Bush/Cheyney were only working to keep us safe from terror, and were willing to cut legal corners to do it.
It really does make sense.
A nation, shocked by the horror of 9/11, demanded our leaders to do all they could to keep terror from our borders. Yes, they did cut corners, but who wouldn't? I mean, this threat by the sinister group al Qaeda was dead set on destroying America. They were going to attack again. We needed information. And torture may have successfully provided that information to win the war against these evil Arabs.
Really, when you think of it, and it will be presented like this in any trial, it does sort of make sense.
And most Americans will remember all of this.

But if the real facts we have of 9/11 that show the official story to be a lie were to be presented by the media, like Alternet, the people would begin to demand more information and eventually would rise up in anger and demand real prosecutions and convictions.
A real trial about 9/11, with severe punishments for perjury, would finally bring the information we need to show 9/11 was covered up, and was an inside job. It would show the complicity of Cheyney/Bush. The people would NOT let this issue go, the way they will about torture.

We are barking up the wrong tree. Go ahead and bark. It will do nothing.
But begin a campaign of showing ALL the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, and we WILL get a criminal trial and we WILL get convictions.

And the US and the world will be a better, safer place.

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

» RE: What will it take..... Posted by: Allstar Cookie
» RE: What will it take..... Posted by: surfreality
» RE: What will it take..... Posted by: hilaryuk
» I agree, brunowe, Posted by: LeftWright
» Political leaders for 9/11 truth Posted by: LeftWright

Comments are closed-

Elizabeth de la Vega: Special Prosecutor now would be a "black hole" for torture prosecutions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: profco on Apr 24, 2009 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently the author has missed, or wrote this story prior to, former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's explanation, on Wednesday night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, that appointing a special prosecutor at this stage would be be "the worst possible" scenario and assure that the case went nowhere. As soon as a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate the torture charges and the memos that were elicited to "justify" them, the facts of the case can no longer be matters of public knowledge and discussion. Anything a special prosecutor discovered could be revealed only to a secret grand jury, and it would be years before anything s/he found out could and would be disclosed to the public. It would, says de la Vega, assure that the possibility of actual prosecution went down a "black hole." It would be, in her words, "the worst possible scenario."

Special prosecutors, de la Vega explained, are a PR move on the part of an administration to clamp down on public discussion. They rarely end in prosecution. In the case of "Scooter Libby," for example, nothing was heard about the case from Sept. 30, 2003, when the special prosecutor was appointed, until 2005, when Libby was indicted for perjury, but not for outing CIA operative Valerie Plame. Thanks to the appointment of the special prosecutor early on, the most important facts of the case have not come to light, and we don't yet know the full story. No one has been punished for the actual crime and probably won't ever be.

As long as a special prosecutor isn't appointed and no charges are filed, new revelations can continue to be made public, and evidence of what happened and who is responsible can continue to accumulate. "We need to let this flood continue. Not only does that allow for eventually to have a cohesive public story, it really enables the internal Justice Department people to have time to look at all these documents -- and there are hundreds of thousands of them."

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

» surfreality... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: surfreality... Posted by: surfreality
» RE: surfreality... Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: surfreality > Quannah Posted by: surfreality
» RE: surfreality > Quannah Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

What Will It Take?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: shill on Apr 24, 2009 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus Christ HIMSELF coming back accompanied by a host of angels singing and a signed memo from God personally saying to prosecute. That's the ONLY way anyone will be prosecuted(if ANYONE at all EVER is) except for the soldiers who carried out these orders to torture.

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

Comments are closed-

Few People Mind when People of Color are Tortured
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jbpazz on Apr 24, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many higher-ups and some CIA Agents have been exposed as the scum of the earth, traitors and worse. Obama should use the dictatorial powers left him by Bush. Guilty until proven innocent, they can contemplate life in prison without trial. Without torture some of the cookies will crumble and some will rat on their pals.
The trick is to make them fear the law more than they fear the CIA.

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

Comments are closed-

Listen Carefully
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DawnL on Apr 24, 2009 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay attention to the words that both the President and the Attorney General are using. They are not saying they will never prosecute.. they are saying they will not prosecute the underlings who weren't given a choice about the way they were to treat the prisoners. They are not saying that they won't prosecute the people at the top who demanded that those methods be put in place.

As Elizabeth de la Varga says, a special prosecutor now would be a mistake because it would put a stop to the flow of information that is outraging Americans.

I wouldn't mind betting that the Obama administration is playing a clever game.. releasing as much information as they can so that the public pressure will reach a point where they 'have no choice' but to prosecute Bushco.

It's not the military personnel who were 'just following orders' that we really want to punish.. it's the men at the top who decided they wanted to torture prisoners.. and given the opposition in Congress from the Repugs and their mouthpiece John McCain, the Obama administration really needs to be in a position where the public is so outraged that their outcry will force Congress to agree that the ones who are really responsible for this outrage are forced to pay for what they did.

Watch and wait.. there are definite signs that this is not a reluctance to prosecute at all but rather a clever tactic designed to go after those at the top.

Remember, Obama too, is a lawyer.

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

» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: surfreality
» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Watch Carefully Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Watch Carefully Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Watch Carefully Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney

Comments are closed-

Queen for a King?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 2thepoint on Apr 24, 2009 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could Obama be setting this up as a way to dump Pelosi, knowing that she and many other democrats are in on Gitmo methods?

It's a great way for him to get rid of that weight around his neck, knowing that Bush and Cheney will never be touched!

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

» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: xvictor
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Quannah
» go git him Q Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: go git him Q Posted by: Quannah
» RE: go git him Q Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Crazy H

Comments are closed-

Obama Has No Intention of Prosectuting
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 24, 2009 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now Obama and Holder have said so many conflicting things that it's like the Bible: people of faith--persistent, irrational belief despite lack of evidence--can select whatever they want to support their assertions.

Obama's reversal after withering criticism and massive public outcry doesn't mean he's going to take meaningful action. At most he wants a bipartisan panel with enough Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats (like himself) to ensure that nothing of substance is done.

It will be as dramatic and as real as a WWF Smackdown. There'll be dramatic denunciations, righteous indignation and some low-level scapegoats, and the big fish will swim free as Obama has always planned.

Prosecution of the torturers and murderers Obama and Holder have praised as dedicated public servants doing their work in good faith is not only morally outrageous, but illogical. Evil designs in politics depend upon willing henchmen, and without a deterrent there will always be a supply of them. And freed of legal pressure, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate and testify against their superiors.

Obama will only step back and allow prosecution if he is forced, and will use his wiles to protect and not to prosecute.

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

» Looking for shift Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Looking for shift Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Looking for shift Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Looking for shift Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

Simple, logical move?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peterjkraus on Apr 24, 2009 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Define torture according to US and international statute, 2) let those who participated in torture tell a judge and jury why they did what they did, 3) let justice take care of the problem once and for all.

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

Comments are closed-

Obama Afraid of Right-Wing Blowback?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tim Brown on Apr 24, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is, if nothing else, a politician and he knows the right-wing reputation for punishing those who anger them. I imagine that he is looking down the road to the time when he leaves office and, heaven forbid, the GOP gets control of one of the chambers of Congress. The stench of the Clinton impeachment still hangs in the air; Obama may well be thinking that if he opens the door to prosecution of former members of the White House the GOP will return the indignity in spades.

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

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» WANKER ALERT! Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: WANKER ALERT! Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: WANKER ALERT! Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

I have an idea.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EinMD on Apr 24, 2009 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a massive protest in DC? We could even jazz it up and deluge Congress with pre-packaged Coffee and say "Wake up Congress! Torture is illegal" or something. That way it's a two-fer. We illustrate how stupid the teabag protests were and we drive home the point that the American people do not support torture in their names.

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

Comments are closed-

Confessions Are Needed.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Apr 24, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The classical way to destroy a group is by getting false confessions from some of its members. Hitler used the assassination attempt against him to round up those that disagreed with his war policies. They all confessed before being murdered. Women were tortured during the Salem witch hunt and they confessed to being partners with the Devil. The use of torture is now being used to shape the Muslim threat. But it only increases anger by torturing its leaders. Water boarding Saddam Hussein was avoided because it wasn’t needed to prove his guilt. His claim of innocence fell on deaf ears. Reality is the best path to peace, it can be obtained with an open hand rather than with a closed fist.

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

Comments are closed-

We must all turn our backs on Obama
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Thomas O. Anderson on Apr 24, 2009 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the past eight years, leading Republicans have intentionally and successfully revived the Nazi blueprint. Incredibly, they have even re-institutionalized the use of torture.

Putting politics above the law, the new administration is trying to "work with" these world criminals - instead of bringing them to justice. Even as you read these words, those who knowingly invoked the use of torture are regrouping for another day.

It's time for a line in the sand. For the sake of our future and posterity, we cannot allow the use of torture to fade away like we did with impeachment. If we can't rely on the moral autonomy of our president, then we must rely on the virtue within us all.

No more feel-good headlines in the alternative media for the man who overlooks world crimes. No more cheers from so-called "progressives" when he tries to bribe their complicity with more jobs or health care. NO RESPECT for the man who turns the Nuremberg principles on their head.

If Obama turns his back on justice, we must all turn our backs on Obama.

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

» Godwin's Law is irrelevant Posted by: Thomas O. Anderson

Comments are closed-

They never prosecuted Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, or
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bitsfick on Apr 24, 2009 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Herbert Walker for trading with the enemy, what makes you think anything has changed?

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

Comments are closed-

While At GM
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Apr 24, 2009 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Were are all the jobs and stuff? Yea I know its only been 100 days but I don't see nothing good coming for the Midwest

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

» RE: While At GM Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: While At GM Posted by: WeimMom
» RE: While At GM Posted by: Crazy H
» Oh, okay fine. Posted by: zipoka
» WeimMom... get real! Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Wrong again Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

effective work
[Report this comment]
Posted by: psychologist on Apr 24, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only part of the documents have ben released we need to demand all the memoes be released. the waterboarding according to reports worked and we are safe to protest and left wing demo are free to seek revenge because of these tactics. ake up peope we are in war with terrorist who strap bombs on a kill your children.

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

» RE: effective work Posted by: Quannah
» Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: She doesn't have to do Posted by: Longdream
» One other observation . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: One other observation . . . Posted by: Longdream
» Not only you . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Not only you . . . Posted by: Longdream
» RE: effective work Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: effective work Posted by: Crazy H

Comments are closed-

What Will It Take For Attorney General to Prosecute Torture Crimes?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nerin on Apr 24, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good question; it could be extended to ask - what will it take to move any politician or appointee to act? Flooding their offices with letters? Picket outside their offices and homes? Boycott them in some meaningful way? March to the Lincoln Memorial?

Have any studies, research been done on this? If so, what are the results? As a citizen I write letters, I march - but does it do any good? If there is not research on this, why not?

Another issue. It seems to me that the larger issue besides prosecuting Torture Crimes is to move in a direction where new laws are created with efficient enforcement mechanisms or new structures are created or old structures shut down or drastically revamped - SO THAT SUCH BEHAVIOR IS NOT REPEATED.

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

Comments are closed-

'Nuff said
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Apr 24, 2009 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The evidence for torture and other capital crimes is more than adequate, it's OVERWHELMING. Most Americans are plenty pissed off-that is except for the remaining bushie ass lickers-and want prosecutions to begin NOW. Ol' quasimodo and his hand puppet, dunbya are arrogantly insulting our people with their self-righteous blather. Hell, bush is even goiing on a speaking tour with none other than Bill Clinton. Seems he wants even more money and a rehabilitation (falsification) of his past misdeeds. He wants a LEGACY. I got yer legacy right here, dipshit. How about "Most popular punk on D block"? I'll even spring for the price of a tiara so you can burnish your image at Leavenworth.

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

» RE: 'Nuff said Posted by: Quannah
» RE: 'Nuff said Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Signatures
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WeimMom on Apr 24, 2009 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess this means once there are a Quarter Million signatures on the Barack Hussein Obama (aka, Barry Soetoro) Petition, he can then be impeached and prosecuted?

I find it a sad day when BO turns on our own country, Americans should be united, especially during these difficult times, however BO has managed to divide our Country quite well.

(http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95772)

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

» RE: Signatures Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Signatures Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Signatures Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

REALITY CHECK FROM THE MIDDLE!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dwaln on Apr 24, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been blessed/cursed to know and love lots of people on both the 'Left' and 'Right'. What they share in common, even with those of us in the middle, is the intense need to make sense out of things. THIS IS A PRIMARY PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED!!!!! We all have it.

What the 'Left' and the 'Right' have in common, that they do not share with those of us in the middle, is a SELECTIVELY FORTIFIED belief in the evilness/stupidity of their counterparts on the other side.

For those of us who have been perpetually between friends, who wanted to kill each other, we get a sense of the dangers inherent in the processes of vilification over long periods of time. [It becomes a Religion with its' collection of beliefs, fortified with selective preponderances.]

"True Believers" can never quite grasp; why others don't 'see the light'.

Those of us cursed to be in the middle of this storm are not immune to being reactionary. We have the same need to counter the dangers we think we see as everyone else. But please note: Our reactions are not against one side or the other but rather in keeping one friend or the other from doing injustice to another out of their accumulated 'Religious' fervor and certitude.

This means, the more you look like a 'mob' the harder it is for those in the middle to lend their support. Indeed, your issue - no matter its' merits - will be trumped by our own.

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

» Good question, Quannah...(n/t) Posted by: LeftWright
» You missed my point. Posted by: dwaln
» RE: You missed my point. Posted by: Quannah
» RE: You missed my point. Posted by: dustdevil
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» So many words . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dwaln
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dwaln
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dwaln

Comments are closed-

Lord Obama and the loony show
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fcs25 on Apr 24, 2009 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets see....We haven't been attacked in 8 years however alot of plots to kill us were discovered and stopped before more Americans were killed on American soil. Why? Because the terrorist talked and told of the plans,like the one to hit LA,Calif.and why did they talk??Because they were forced to by our methods of interrogation.Now the dumb assed liberal Democrats and loons from the ACLU and MoveOn.org wish to prosecute the very ones that kept us safe....Oh Well!! Lord Obama and his loonies will keep us safe.

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

Comments are closed-

TO LATE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: old cowboy65609 on Apr 24, 2009 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK PEOPLE SO YOU THINK BUSH AND CHENEY KEPT US
SAFE. WRONG IF THAT WAS THE CASE THE TWIN
TOWERS WOULD STILL BE STANDING.
FUNNY HOW PEOPLE THINK HE KEPT US SAFE GOING INTO A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
ATTACK ON US KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
BUSH AND CHENEY BROKE OUR LAWS THE LAWS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND NOW THEY WILL PAY FOR IT.
ALL YOU PEOPLE HAVE INTERNET SO TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK UP THE BUSH FAMILY HISTORY AND WHILE YOUR AT IT LOOK UP SKULL AND BONES.

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

» The Family Black Ops Posted by: godsbreath64

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

Nasookin
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nasookin on Apr 24, 2009 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How does this compare to water boarding?

Convoy of Death is a 2002 account by Irish documentary filmmaker Jamie Doran about war crimes committed on alleged Taliban fighters in November, 2001, at Mazar - e - Sharif, Afghanistan, after they had surrendered to Northern Alliance fighters after the siege of Kunduz.
Eyewitnesses claim that Taliban prisoners were transported in containers for several days, some of them suffocating and others dying when the containers were fired upon "in order to make holes for the air to get in."

It is alleged that US military or CIA agents were present. Doran claims that mass graves of thousands of victims were found by the United Nations.The International Committee of the Red Cross also investigated the incident.


You Tube Video Documentary of Afghan Massacre - Convoy of death - part 1 through 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vbmCRImZR4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SeetAGy3KI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Awmgw4Abg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8euyiAeYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N91xjlIQRE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBsh1Fj8VM

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

Comments are closed-

Kayfabe
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Apr 24, 2009 3:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is a one-party state.


FREE AMERICA

VOCA, NOW!

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

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

Comments are closed-

don't cover-up torture
[Report this comment]
Posted by: A. Z. Arrow on Apr 25, 2009 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Torture is a national disgrace, it is also illegal: The Nuremberg defense will not do -"I was only following orders." Well, who gave these orders? Who authorized the use of torture? The law requires that those who colluded with these crimes be investigate, charged, brought to trail, and, if found guilty, sentenced --CIA operatives, private contractors, and Bush administration officials included. There is no debate on this. Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention that the United States Government initiated, help draft, and signed, along with other nations, on the dotted line. The US has imposed compliance with Geneva in its' treaties and military alliances with other nations. Further, United States law makes it obligatory that Eric Holder bring charges against those responsible for the crime of torture. If Holder and/or Obama do not comply with these laws then they are engaged in a cover-up.

-----> Arrow
4/25/09

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

Comments are closed-

Prosecute these crooks, they are no better than us regular folks, only they
[Report this comment]
Posted by: avidAmerican on Apr 25, 2009 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are crooks who think they are above the law. I hear there will soon be room in Guantanamo. Good place to give them free room and board.

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

Comments are closed-

Prosecuting Torture: How?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 25, 2009 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So. The case that America tortured is clear enough. Torture is against the law. What does an earnest Attorney General do?

He starts to build a legal framework for prosecutions. Then he fits facts to the framework and tries to convince a jury.

Let's help AG Holder along with the first step. What's the legal framework for prosecutions?

We can divide the bad actors into three groups:

- Lawyers who gave very bad, very twisted legal advice.

- Torturers and their chain of command, the direct actors who planned and carried out torture, under the direction of the President.

- President Bush. Torture was done by his order, and so he bears an especially heavy share of the blame for it.

Take the first group - the lawyers. Tell me something: is giving bad legal advice criminal behavior? In theory, it might be - for the same reason shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater that is not burning down might be considered a criminal act. But it's going to be very hard to make it stick. If we begin criminalizing legal opinions, where does it stop? What are the rules of that game? And since we've never really done that before under our system of jurisprudence, is criminalizing legal advice after the fact even possible?

I doubt it. The best way to go after the lawyers in a criminal sense is to attack the deprofessionalizing of the Justice Department. Bad hiring policies, Hatch Act violations, fabricated evidence, politically-motivated prosecutions, that sort of thing. Make no mistake: Justice was deprofessionalized, and that's the reason we got torture. They no longer saw their mission as enforcing the law, but rather finding ways around it. Because it was deprofessionalized, there is probably a whole lot of unprofessional dirt and criminality just waiting to be dug up.

What about the torturers and their chain of command?

Their defense is not, "I was following orders." It's "I was following orders I believed to be lawful, on advice of the Justice Department."

What jury would convict a person who could truthfully say those words?

Once again, if you want to nail torturers, you'll have to prove not only that they carried out illegal torture, but that they knowingly failed to adhere to the Justice Department's interpretation of what was legal. (Flawed as it was.) Those who merely carried out torture as ordered are probably invulnerable to prosecution; only those who exceeded their orders are likely prosecutorial wins.

And that leaves President Bush himself.

He can truthfully say, "I asked my Justice Department for advice. They told me what was legal to do, and I ordered it done."

It would be very, very hard to prove that he packed Justice with rogue lawyers who would write for him anything he wanted them to write. It would even be hard to prove that Bush is clever enough to have even thought of it.

Nailing Bush on torture will be hard.

They had a similar problem with Al Capone, years back. Eventually they got him on evading his taxes. I think the lesson there is that if you really want to see justice done, and the letter of the law bars your way, keep looking. Perhaps something will turn up. Once you have identified a criminal, you know, you can pretty much expect him to perform criminal acts, again and again. In Bush's case, corruption, money laundering, and taxes are pretty likely to yield pay dirt, if investigators keep a close watch.

Are you listening, Attorney General Holder? Do what you can, within the law, to bring these perps to justice. You know and we know they belong behind bars. We expect you to do your best to put them there.

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

» RE: Prosecuting Torture: How? Posted by: BulldogRedeemer

Comments are closed-

BulldogRedemer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer on Apr 26, 2009 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-----and there is an equal outrage and a backlash brewing against those who demand and would prosecute anyone for trying their damnedest to save additional American lives right after 9/11. This includes hundreds, if not thousands, of Angeleos who are alive today who might not be but for the Bush administration. If the Clinton administration had acted accordingly (and Bush administration prior to 9/11), perhaps thousands of additional New Yorkers would be alive today. There is also a growing effort to obtain data on the Obama administration for giving "aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war". I doubt that a prosecution by a future Republican administration would actually take place. Only if the current administration (or Congress-but they also knew and approved of enhanced interrogations right after 9/11 so they probably wouldn't) should go forward with any prosecution. Two can play this "Banana Republic" recrimination and counter recrimination game.

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

» Silly boy Posted by: John Edward
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

I am going to make a bet...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bonapartist on Apr 24, 2009 12:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that nobody important will ever be prosecuted. Lindsey England (sp?) types - maybe but nobody above that.

Yes, it was done in Nuremberg but there is a story that Goering commented the trial was held because Third Reich lost the war, not because they murdered millions etc.

In short Nazis went on trial when they were out of power, Republicans of Bush's former administration are still in power. After all the Republican party is nothing but one half of american ruling oligarchy.

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

» Don't say that!. Posted by: willymack
» RE: I am going to make a bet... Posted by: LaurelAnn
» RE: OK, I'll take your bet Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: I am going to make a bet... Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney

Comments are closed-

If They Don't...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: laurenaislinn on Apr 24, 2009 2:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
prosecute because there are a few repugnicans still defending Bush (fewer than the # of counterpart political buffoons on TV & radio) then the American people Will See that it is done. How could we force Nixon to resign & prosecute & jail the White House conspirators in a trial that ultimately led not just to COINTELPRO? How could we ignore that these same people attempted to stop Daniel Ellseberg from releasing the Pentagon Papers in which the CIA showed the Vietnam War as based on false info and unwinnable?
The American people saw their trust betrayed and their 'president', who said he could do no wrong, caught red-handed. They demanded prosecution. Our leaders of the past had the courage and we-including those who fought against us over Vietnam-demanded justice.
Now that the 60s generation holds the power how could we possibly shrink from anything but full disclosure of all crimes comitted by the Bush Administration? We intended great things when finally in power. Are we now going to shrink from our duties? I doubt it. The Congress and Justice Dept are beginning to show some actual backbone. With each new disclosure, they find they have little choice.
This has gone far beyond Iran-Contra, an impeachable offense & high crime itself, during a 'feel good & partriotic' denial of the truth the people apparently 'needed' to recoup. That has now been shown to have been the beginning of a succession of gangster-governments that have brought this country to the brink of collapse.
The Bush-Cheney world was the epitomy of criminal delusion. It is over now: as was proclaimed 40 yr ago, "The Whole World Is Watching". Obama and Holder cannot run from That audience. If they try the millions who demand justice will force their hand.

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

Comments are closed-

What will it take? It will take Americans realizing they were lied to about 9/11!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: pfgetty on Apr 24, 2009 3:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can show all you want to to Americans that torture was used, but most Americans, reminded of their fear of more terror attacks, will realize that Bush/Cheyney were only working to keep us safe from terror, and were willing to cut legal corners to do it.
It really does make sense.
A nation, shocked by the horror of 9/11, demanded our leaders to do all they could to keep terror from our borders. Yes, they did cut corners, but who wouldn't? I mean, this threat by the sinister group al Qaeda was dead set on destroying America. They were going to attack again. We needed information. And torture may have successfully provided that information to win the war against these evil Arabs.
Really, when you think of it, and it will be presented like this in any trial, it does sort of make sense.
And most Americans will remember all of this.

But if the real facts we have of 9/11 that show the official story to be a lie were to be presented by the media, like Alternet, the people would begin to demand more information and eventually would rise up in anger and demand real prosecutions and convictions.
A real trial about 9/11, with severe punishments for perjury, would finally bring the information we need to show 9/11 was covered up, and was an inside job. It would show the complicity of Cheyney/Bush. The people would NOT let this issue go, the way they will about torture.

We are barking up the wrong tree. Go ahead and bark. It will do nothing.
But begin a campaign of showing ALL the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, and we WILL get a criminal trial and we WILL get convictions.

And the US and the world will be a better, safer place.

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

» RE: What will it take..... Posted by: Allstar Cookie
» RE: What will it take..... Posted by: surfreality
» RE: What will it take..... Posted by: hilaryuk
» I agree, brunowe, Posted by: LeftWright
» Political leaders for 9/11 truth Posted by: LeftWright

Comments are closed-

Elizabeth de la Vega: Special Prosecutor now would be a "black hole" for torture prosecutions
[Report this comment]
Posted by: profco on Apr 24, 2009 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently the author has missed, or wrote this story prior to, former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's explanation, on Wednesday night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, that appointing a special prosecutor at this stage would be be "the worst possible" scenario and assure that the case went nowhere. As soon as a special prosecutor is appointed to investigate the torture charges and the memos that were elicited to "justify" them, the facts of the case can no longer be matters of public knowledge and discussion. Anything a special prosecutor discovered could be revealed only to a secret grand jury, and it would be years before anything s/he found out could and would be disclosed to the public. It would, says de la Vega, assure that the possibility of actual prosecution went down a "black hole." It would be, in her words, "the worst possible scenario."

Special prosecutors, de la Vega explained, are a PR move on the part of an administration to clamp down on public discussion. They rarely end in prosecution. In the case of "Scooter Libby," for example, nothing was heard about the case from Sept. 30, 2003, when the special prosecutor was appointed, until 2005, when Libby was indicted for perjury, but not for outing CIA operative Valerie Plame. Thanks to the appointment of the special prosecutor early on, the most important facts of the case have not come to light, and we don't yet know the full story. No one has been punished for the actual crime and probably won't ever be.

As long as a special prosecutor isn't appointed and no charges are filed, new revelations can continue to be made public, and evidence of what happened and who is responsible can continue to accumulate. "We need to let this flood continue. Not only does that allow for eventually to have a cohesive public story, it really enables the internal Justice Department people to have time to look at all these documents -- and there are hundreds of thousands of them."

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

» surfreality... Posted by: Quannah
» RE: surfreality... Posted by: surfreality
» RE: surfreality... Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: surfreality > Quannah Posted by: surfreality
» RE: surfreality > Quannah Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

What Will It Take?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: shill on Apr 24, 2009 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus Christ HIMSELF coming back accompanied by a host of angels singing and a signed memo from God personally saying to prosecute. That's the ONLY way anyone will be prosecuted(if ANYONE at all EVER is) except for the soldiers who carried out these orders to torture.

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

Comments are closed-

Few People Mind when People of Color are Tortured
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jbpazz on Apr 24, 2009 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many higher-ups and some CIA Agents have been exposed as the scum of the earth, traitors and worse. Obama should use the dictatorial powers left him by Bush. Guilty until proven innocent, they can contemplate life in prison without trial. Without torture some of the cookies will crumble and some will rat on their pals.
The trick is to make them fear the law more than they fear the CIA.

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

Comments are closed-

Listen Carefully
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DawnL on Apr 24, 2009 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pay attention to the words that both the President and the Attorney General are using. They are not saying they will never prosecute.. they are saying they will not prosecute the underlings who weren't given a choice about the way they were to treat the prisoners. They are not saying that they won't prosecute the people at the top who demanded that those methods be put in place.

As Elizabeth de la Varga says, a special prosecutor now would be a mistake because it would put a stop to the flow of information that is outraging Americans.

I wouldn't mind betting that the Obama administration is playing a clever game.. releasing as much information as they can so that the public pressure will reach a point where they 'have no choice' but to prosecute Bushco.

It's not the military personnel who were 'just following orders' that we really want to punish.. it's the men at the top who decided they wanted to torture prisoners.. and given the opposition in Congress from the Repugs and their mouthpiece John McCain, the Obama administration really needs to be in a position where the public is so outraged that their outcry will force Congress to agree that the ones who are really responsible for this outrage are forced to pay for what they did.

Watch and wait.. there are definite signs that this is not a reluctance to prosecute at all but rather a clever tactic designed to go after those at the top.

Remember, Obama too, is a lawyer.

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

» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: surfreality
» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Watch Carefully Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Watch Carefully Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Watch Carefully Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Listen Carefully Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney

Comments are closed-

Queen for a King?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 2thepoint on Apr 24, 2009 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could Obama be setting this up as a way to dump Pelosi, knowing that she and many other democrats are in on Gitmo methods?

It's a great way for him to get rid of that weight around his neck, knowing that Bush and Cheney will never be touched!

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

» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: 2thepoint
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: xvictor
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Quannah
» go git him Q Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: go git him Q Posted by: Quannah
» RE: go git him Q Posted by: kogwonton
» RE: Queen for a King? Posted by: Crazy H

Comments are closed-

Obama Has No Intention of Prosectuting
[Report this comment]
Posted by: DrBrian on Apr 24, 2009 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now Obama and Holder have said so many conflicting things that it's like the Bible: people of faith--persistent, irrational belief despite lack of evidence--can select whatever they want to support their assertions.

Obama's reversal after withering criticism and massive public outcry doesn't mean he's going to take meaningful action. At most he wants a bipartisan panel with enough Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats (like himself) to ensure that nothing of substance is done.

It will be as dramatic and as real as a WWF Smackdown. There'll be dramatic denunciations, righteous indignation and some low-level scapegoats, and the big fish will swim free as Obama has always planned.

Prosecution of the torturers and murderers Obama and Holder have praised as dedicated public servants doing their work in good faith is not only morally outrageous, but illogical. Evil designs in politics depend upon willing henchmen, and without a deterrent there will always be a supply of them. And freed of legal pressure, there will be no incentive for them to cooperate and testify against their superiors.

Obama will only step back and allow prosecution if he is forced, and will use his wiles to protect and not to prosecute.

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

» Looking for shift Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Looking for shift Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Looking for shift Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: Looking for shift Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

Simple, logical move?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: peterjkraus on Apr 24, 2009 5:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Define torture according to US and international statute, 2) let those who participated in torture tell a judge and jury why they did what they did, 3) let justice take care of the problem once and for all.

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

Comments are closed-

Obama Afraid of Right-Wing Blowback?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tim Brown on Apr 24, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is, if nothing else, a politician and he knows the right-wing reputation for punishing those who anger them. I imagine that he is looking down the road to the time when he leaves office and, heaven forbid, the GOP gets control of one of the chambers of Congress. The stench of the Clinton impeachment still hangs in the air; Obama may well be thinking that if he opens the door to prosecution of former members of the White House the GOP will return the indignity in spades.

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

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» WANKER ALERT! Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: WANKER ALERT! Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: WANKER ALERT! Posted by: GuitarBill

Comments are closed-

I have an idea.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EinMD on Apr 24, 2009 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about a massive protest in DC? We could even jazz it up and deluge Congress with pre-packaged Coffee and say "Wake up Congress! Torture is illegal" or something. That way it's a two-fer. We illustrate how stupid the teabag protests were and we drive home the point that the American people do not support torture in their names.

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

Comments are closed-

Confessions Are Needed.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: melpol on Apr 24, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The classical way to destroy a group is by getting false confessions from some of its members. Hitler used the assassination attempt against him to round up those that disagreed with his war policies. They all confessed before being murdered. Women were tortured during the Salem witch hunt and they confessed to being partners with the Devil. The use of torture is now being used to shape the Muslim threat. But it only increases anger by torturing its leaders. Water boarding Saddam Hussein was avoided because it wasn’t needed to prove his guilt. His claim of innocence fell on deaf ears. Reality is the best path to peace, it can be obtained with an open hand rather than with a closed fist.

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

Comments are closed-

We must all turn our backs on Obama
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Thomas O. Anderson on Apr 24, 2009 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the past eight years, leading Republicans have intentionally and successfully revived the Nazi blueprint. Incredibly, they have even re-institutionalized the use of torture.

Putting politics above the law, the new administration is trying to "work with" these world criminals - instead of bringing them to justice. Even as you read these words, those who knowingly invoked the use of torture are regrouping for another day.

It's time for a line in the sand. For the sake of our future and posterity, we cannot allow the use of torture to fade away like we did with impeachment. If we can't rely on the moral autonomy of our president, then we must rely on the virtue within us all.

No more feel-good headlines in the alternative media for the man who overlooks world crimes. No more cheers from so-called "progressives" when he tries to bribe their complicity with more jobs or health care. NO RESPECT for the man who turns the Nuremberg principles on their head.

If Obama turns his back on justice, we must all turn our backs on Obama.

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

» Godwin's Law is irrelevant Posted by: Thomas O. Anderson

Comments are closed-

They never prosecuted Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, or
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bitsfick on Apr 24, 2009 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Herbert Walker for trading with the enemy, what makes you think anything has changed?

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

Comments are closed-

While At GM
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on Apr 24, 2009 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Were are all the jobs and stuff? Yea I know its only been 100 days but I don't see nothing good coming for the Midwest

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

» RE: While At GM Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: While At GM Posted by: WeimMom
» RE: While At GM Posted by: Crazy H
» Oh, okay fine. Posted by: zipoka
» WeimMom... get real! Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Wrong again Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

effective work
[Report this comment]
Posted by: psychologist on Apr 24, 2009 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
only part of the documents have ben released we need to demand all the memoes be released. the waterboarding according to reports worked and we are safe to protest and left wing demo are free to seek revenge because of these tactics. ake up peope we are in war with terrorist who strap bombs on a kill your children.

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

» RE: effective work Posted by: Quannah
» Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Good act, Quannah . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: She doesn't have to do Posted by: Longdream
» One other observation . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: One other observation . . . Posted by: Longdream
» Not only you . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: Not only you . . . Posted by: Longdream
» RE: effective work Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: effective work Posted by: Crazy H

Comments are closed-

What Will It Take For Attorney General to Prosecute Torture Crimes?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nerin on Apr 24, 2009 8:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good question; it could be extended to ask - what will it take to move any politician or appointee to act? Flooding their offices with letters? Picket outside their offices and homes? Boycott them in some meaningful way? March to the Lincoln Memorial?

Have any studies, research been done on this? If so, what are the results? As a citizen I write letters, I march - but does it do any good? If there is not research on this, why not?

Another issue. It seems to me that the larger issue besides prosecuting Torture Crimes is to move in a direction where new laws are created with efficient enforcement mechanisms or new structures are created or old structures shut down or drastically revamped - SO THAT SUCH BEHAVIOR IS NOT REPEATED.

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

Comments are closed-

'Nuff said
[Report this comment]
Posted by: willymack on Apr 24, 2009 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The evidence for torture and other capital crimes is more than adequate, it's OVERWHELMING. Most Americans are plenty pissed off-that is except for the remaining bushie ass lickers-and want prosecutions to begin NOW. Ol' quasimodo and his hand puppet, dunbya are arrogantly insulting our people with their self-righteous blather. Hell, bush is even goiing on a speaking tour with none other than Bill Clinton. Seems he wants even more money and a rehabilitation (falsification) of his past misdeeds. He wants a LEGACY. I got yer legacy right here, dipshit. How about "Most popular punk on D block"? I'll even spring for the price of a tiara so you can burnish your image at Leavenworth.

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

» RE: 'Nuff said Posted by: Quannah
» RE: 'Nuff said Posted by: Sister_Lauren

Comments are closed-

Signatures
[Report this comment]
Posted by: WeimMom on Apr 24, 2009 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess this means once there are a Quarter Million signatures on the Barack Hussein Obama (aka, Barry Soetoro) Petition, he can then be impeached and prosecuted?

I find it a sad day when BO turns on our own country, Americans should be united, especially during these difficult times, however BO has managed to divide our Country quite well.

(http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95772)

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

» RE: Signatures Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Signatures Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Signatures Posted by: Quannah

Comments are closed-

REALITY CHECK FROM THE MIDDLE!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dwaln on Apr 24, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been blessed/cursed to know and love lots of people on both the 'Left' and 'Right'. What they share in common, even with those of us in the middle, is the intense need to make sense out of things. THIS IS A PRIMARY PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED!!!!! We all have it.

What the 'Left' and the 'Right' have in common, that they do not share with those of us in the middle, is a SELECTIVELY FORTIFIED belief in the evilness/stupidity of their counterparts on the other side.

For those of us who have been perpetually between friends, who wanted to kill each other, we get a sense of the dangers inherent in the processes of vilification over long periods of time. [It becomes a Religion with its' collection of beliefs, fortified with selective preponderances.]

"True Believers" can never quite grasp; why others don't 'see the light'.

Those of us cursed to be in the middle of this storm are not immune to being reactionary. We have the same need to counter the dangers we think we see as everyone else. But please note: Our reactions are not against one side or the other but rather in keeping one friend or the other from doing injustice to another out of their accumulated 'Religious' fervor and certitude.

This means, the more you look like a 'mob' the harder it is for those in the middle to lend their support. Indeed, your issue - no matter its' merits - will be trumped by our own.

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

» Good question, Quannah...(n/t) Posted by: LeftWright
» You missed my point. Posted by: dwaln
» RE: You missed my point. Posted by: Quannah
» RE: You missed my point. Posted by: dustdevil
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» So many words . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dwaln
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dwaln
» RE: So many words . . . Posted by: dwaln

Comments are closed-

Lord Obama and the loony show
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fcs25 on Apr 24, 2009 12:18 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets see....We haven't been attacked in 8 years however alot of plots to kill us were discovered and stopped before more Americans were killed on American soil. Why? Because the terrorist talked and told of the plans,like the one to hit LA,Calif.and why did they talk??Because they were forced to by our methods of interrogation.Now the dumb assed liberal Democrats and loons from the ACLU and MoveOn.org wish to prosecute the very ones that kept us safe....Oh Well!! Lord Obama and his loonies will keep us safe.

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

Comments are closed-

TO LATE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: old cowboy65609 on Apr 24, 2009 1:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK PEOPLE SO YOU THINK BUSH AND CHENEY KEPT US
SAFE. WRONG IF THAT WAS THE CASE THE TWIN
TOWERS WOULD STILL BE STANDING.
FUNNY HOW PEOPLE THINK HE KEPT US SAFE GOING INTO A COUNTRY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
ATTACK ON US KILLING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.
BUSH AND CHENEY BROKE OUR LAWS THE LAWS OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND NOW THEY WILL PAY FOR IT.
ALL YOU PEOPLE HAVE INTERNET SO TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK UP THE BUSH FAMILY HISTORY AND WHILE YOUR AT IT LOOK UP SKULL AND BONES.

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

» The Family Black Ops Posted by: godsbreath64

Comments are closed-

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.

Comments are closed-

Nasookin
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Nasookin on Apr 24, 2009 2:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How does this compare to water boarding?

Convoy of Death is a 2002 account by Irish documentary filmmaker Jamie Doran about war crimes committed on alleged Taliban fighters in November, 2001, at Mazar - e - Sharif, Afghanistan, after they had surrendered to Northern Alliance fighters after the siege of Kunduz.
Eyewitnesses claim that Taliban prisoners were transported in containers for several days, some of them suffocating and others dying when the containers were fired upon "in order to make holes for the air to get in."

It is alleged that US military or CIA agents were present. Doran claims that mass graves of thousands of victims were found by the United Nations.The International Committee of the Red Cross also investigated the incident.


You Tube Video Documentary of Afghan Massacre - Convoy of death - part 1 through 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vbmCRImZR4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SeetAGy3KI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Awmgw4Abg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8euyiAeYY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N91xjlIQRE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLBsh1Fj8VM

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

Comments are closed-

Kayfabe
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Revolutionary (Direct) Democracy on Apr 24, 2009 3:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US is a one-party state.


FREE AMERICA

VOCA, NOW!

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

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

Comments are closed-

don't cover-up torture
[Report this comment]
Posted by: A. Z. Arrow on Apr 25, 2009 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Torture is a national disgrace, it is also illegal: The Nuremberg defense will not do -"I was only following orders." Well, who gave these orders? Who authorized the use of torture? The law requires that those who colluded with these crimes be investigate, charged, brought to trail, and, if found guilty, sentenced --CIA operatives, private contractors, and Bush administration officials included. There is no debate on this. Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention that the United States Government initiated, help draft, and signed, along with other nations, on the dotted line. The US has imposed compliance with Geneva in its' treaties and military alliances with other nations. Further, United States law makes it obligatory that Eric Holder bring charges against those responsible for the crime of torture. If Holder and/or Obama do not comply with these laws then they are engaged in a cover-up.

-----> Arrow
4/25/09

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

Comments are closed-

Prosecute these crooks, they are no better than us regular folks, only they
[Report this comment]
Posted by: avidAmerican on Apr 25, 2009 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are crooks who think they are above the law. I hear there will soon be room in Guantanamo. Good place to give them free room and board.

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

Comments are closed-

Prosecuting Torture: How?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Urgelt on Apr 25, 2009 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So. The case that America tortured is clear enough. Torture is against the law. What does an earnest Attorney General do?

He starts to build a legal framework for prosecutions. Then he fits facts to the framework and tries to convince a jury.

Let's help AG Holder along with the first step. What's the legal framework for prosecutions?

We can divide the bad actors into three groups:

- Lawyers who gave very bad, very twisted legal advice.

- Torturers and their chain of command, the direct actors who planned and carried out torture, under the direction of the President.

- President Bush. Torture was done by his order, and so he bears an especially heavy share of the blame for it.

Take the first group - the lawyers. Tell me something: is giving bad legal advice criminal behavior? In theory, it might be - for the same reason shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater that is not burning down might be considered a criminal act. But it's going to be very hard to make it stick. If we begin criminalizing legal opinions, where does it stop? What are the rules of that game? And since we've never really done that before under our system of jurisprudence, is criminalizing legal advice after the fact even possible?

I doubt it. The best way to go after the lawyers in a criminal sense is to attack the deprofessionalizing of the Justice Department. Bad hiring policies, Hatch Act violations, fabricated evidence, politically-motivated prosecutions, that sort of thing. Make no mistake: Justice was deprofessionalized, and that's the reason we got torture. They no longer saw their mission as enforcing the law, but rather finding ways around it. Because it was deprofessionalized, there is probably a whole lot of unprofessional dirt and criminality just waiting to be dug up.

What about the torturers and their chain of command?

Their defense is not, "I was following orders." It's "I was following orders I believed to be lawful, on advice of the Justice Department."

What jury would convict a person who could truthfully say those words?

Once again, if you want to nail torturers, you'll have to prove not only that they carried out illegal torture, but that they knowingly failed to adhere to the Justice Department's interpretation of what was legal. (Flawed as it was.) Those who merely carried out torture as ordered are probably invulnerable to prosecution; only those who exceeded their orders are likely prosecutorial wins.

And that leaves President Bush himself.

He can truthfully say, "I asked my Justice Department for advice. They told me what was legal to do, and I ordered it done."

It would be very, very hard to prove that he packed Justice with rogue lawyers who would write for him anything he wanted them to write. It would even be hard to prove that Bush is clever enough to have even thought of it.

Nailing Bush on torture will be hard.

They had a similar problem with Al Capone, years back. Eventually they got him on evading his taxes. I think the lesson there is that if you really want to see justice done, and the letter of the law bars your way, keep looking. Perhaps something will turn up. Once you have identified a criminal, you know, you can pretty much expect him to perform criminal acts, again and again. In Bush's case, corruption, money laundering, and taxes are pretty likely to yield pay dirt, if investigators keep a close watch.

Are you listening, Attorney General Holder? Do what you can, within the law, to bring these perps to justice. You know and we know they belong behind bars. We expect you to do your best to put them there.

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

» RE: Prosecuting Torture: How? Posted by: BulldogRedeemer

Comments are closed-

BulldogRedemer
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BulldogRedeemer on Apr 26, 2009 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
-----and there is an equal outrage and a backlash brewing against those who demand and would prosecute anyone for trying their damnedest to save additional American lives right after 9/11. This includes hundreds, if not thousands, of Angeleos who are alive today who might not be but for the Bush administration. If the Clinton administration had acted accordingly (and Bush administration prior to 9/11), perhaps thousands of additional New Yorkers would be alive today. There is also a growing effort to obtain data on the Obama administration for giving "aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war". I doubt that a prosecution by a future Republican administration would actually take place. Only if the current administration (or Congress-but they also knew and approved of enhanced interrogations right after 9/11 so they probably wouldn't) should go forward with any prosecution. Two can play this "Banana Republic" recrimination and counter recrimination game.

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

» Silly boy Posted by: John Edward
 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
We Must Lift the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan
 
Pushing for “Zero Tolerance” on Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo
 
Updated: Obama Calls GOP Bluff on Health-Care Reform
 
The Tea Party Dumps Economic Populism: Where are the Progressives?
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Why Are Americans Passive as Millions Lose Their Homes, Jobs, Families and the American Dream?
  2. 5 Ways Techno-Gadgetry Is Bringing Out the Worst in Humanity
  3. Why Has the FDA Allowed a Drug Marked 'Not Safe for Use in Humans' to Be Fed to Livestock Right Before Slaughter?
  4. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  5. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  6. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  7. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  8. It's Now More Dangerous to Give Birth in California Than It Is in Kuwait or Bosnia
  9. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  10. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
ABOUT DIGG