And THIS is why the Dems' cowardly decision

[choie]

not to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes will have repercussions for years to come. The fact that this administration is able to nominate for the head of the CIA somebody who was involved in torture and the destruction of evidence is precisely why. We have to look forward and not back right? Well here we are...

[jalan48]

1. Yep. Did we ever get a reason why the torturers weren't prosecuted or were they too big to fail?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. As I recall, there was a strong sentiment

of "Let bygones be bygones" and that we should all forgive and forget. I was outraged at the time. If every single criminal case were treated that way, with an attitude of, "Oh well, it's all over so let's just move on," there'd be no rule of law.

[Crash2Parties]

16. Pelosi's "off the table"

[Hortensis]

62. Garbage. MORE blaming Democrats for Republican crimes?!

What on earth goes on with those disposed to twist reality so destructively?

THIS is what people mean when they claim Democrats defeat themselves. That's a smear of most Democrats, of course, because only some are guilty of spreading these twisted, circular firing squad viewpoints. And not all of those are actually Democrats, by any means.

If I could trade the whole lot of this type to the Repubs so they could badmouth their new party, blaming fellow Republicans for healthcare reform, fighting against torture and for equality, establishing worker rights in the first place -- and get some mindlessly loyal trumpsters in return, I'd do it in a second. A SPLIT second.

[choie]

64. Twist reality?

Why is your thinking so black and white? So we're not supposed to analyze what the Democrats have done before yesterday? That's what mature, intelligent people do. Analyze. Let's just keep making the same mistakes year after year without taking account of mistakes that were made. We can't control what the goddamn republicans do, but we can try to influence what the Democrats do. The mindset that the Dems can't be criticized is "my country, right or wrong" thinking. Are the majority of the decisions and policies Democrats stand for just and correct? Yes. Have they (we) also made some bad mistakes. Yes.

[Hortensis]

75. If you are not worried about the peculiar mindset

that hears about Republican crimes and immediately pivots to criticize Democrats for them, you should be. Assuming you don't want to repeat the 2016 tragedy that put our national government under the control of those who approve torture, of course.

America's involvement in torture is extremely well documented, including the actions of both parties down to every vote of every legislator, excepting those votes the Republicans hid, but we have good information on what happened in those also. Also the fights by private conservative and liberal talking heads, authors and groups.

There is literally NO valid excuse for constantly pivoting to blame the Democratic Party for Republican atrocities and other crimes. Which leaves only highly questionable reasons for behaving that way.

[tonyt53]

82. Thank you!

[sunRISEnow]

90. I did not want to tackle this Op. You are doing the heavy lifting. Thank you.

[Hortensis]

101. I meant to call out blaming Dems for Pub crimes

to make the point for passersby and then get out.

Sucker!

[guillaumeb]

104. No, actual history.

If a crime was committed, the Obama Justice Department should have been tasked with investigating and prosecuting if warranted.

[Hortensis]

105. Do NOT defend blaming Democrats for GOP crimes.

THAT is what the OP is doing and what I am calling out.

[choie]

110. I will call out whoever I damn well please.

Be they republican or democrat for not having a moral backbone. no amount of your outrage will prevent other voices from being heard on this site. It has nothing to do with holding Dems accountable for GOP crimes, it has everything to do with holding them accountable for their FAILURE to hold the GOP accountable for THEIR crimes. Your "righteous indignation" impresses me not a bit.

[guillaumeb]

114. I disagree.

The historical record is here for all to see.

[S.E. TN Liberal]

50. Politicians protect each other. They are all afraid the next criminal to be prosecuted...

...will be themselves.

With all the corruption, they are probably correct.

[Hortensis]

63. Imo, those who refuse to see enormous moral and

ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans both enable Republican victories and deserve Republican government.

And those among them who criticize OTHERS for not stopping torture should go take a long, long, long, long look in a mirror. Until they collapse or gain a smidgen of insight into self. Whichever comes first.

[sunRISEnow]

71. I agree. And it is old, should be put to bed, with the obvious facts available.

[Hortensis]

99. Should. The facts are SO old, but (sigh) so what?

Our party is being flooded with demoralizing propaganda, and those who are already vulnerable to self defeating political negativism and what many analysts describe as "self loathing" are easy victims. They need help to help develop some insight into the why and what of their attitudes and choices. Then a new look at reality.

Right now reality is that there are two very different choices, Democrat OR Republican. Failing to vote for Democrats is defaulting to Republican control. The choices may not be perfect but they're extremely black and white anyway.

Send our kids to affordable college or send them to invade Iran?
Open hospitals or close hospitals?
Extend the rights guaranteed in the constitution to all or persecute elected minorities.
Living wages and large middle classes or massive exploitation and poverty?
Fight climate change or exploit disaster for profit.

[The Polack MSgt]

93. Wait, according to you, the reason the Democrats in Congress

Decided not to go through the incredibly difficult and damaging process of investigating and prosecuting previously serving politicians wasn't the political cost.

It wasn't because investigations take a frustrating amount of time (Hi Mueller!).

It had nothing to do with their limited political capitol - Capitol that we wanted to instead spend on healthcare reform or economic stimulus.

In your universe the Democrats passed on that never ending mud wrestling match because they are just as corrupt as the Bush Admin.

WHY THE FUCK DO YOU COME TO THIS SITE?

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO?

Usually the Democrats I know do not have a "We are as bad as Bush's GOP" position as the default setting

[S.E. TN Liberal]

94. The Polack MSgt,

I am hoping you posted your reply to me by mistake.

I hate to think you are that far from dealing in the real world that any of that is directed at me.

[The Polack MSgt]

96. How am I misunderstanding what you wrote?

Politicians protect each other. They are all afraid the next criminal to be prosecuted...

...will be themselves.

With all the corruption, they are probably correct.

[mcar]

98. That's my read too on the poster's actual post

[S.E. TN Liberal]

103. How much did Obama have Bush-the-dumber investigated for Bush's war crimes, ...

...such as the murders from drones?

If Obama had had Bush charged with war crimes, TraitorTrump would be going after Obama for the same thing.

A lot of the criminal activities in America's government goes by without any effort to prosecute those who commit them. That is a sad position for Americans to support.

Democrats are not saints in these kinds of issues. It would be stupid for anyone to assume having a D next to a politician's name means that person is a saint.

There have been enough criminal convictions over the years to make that obvious.

[The Polack MSgt]

107. Canonization is not required to be able to see the difference between the 2 parties

It bothers me that people seem to believe that since the Democratic Party failed to be perfect in every way it was somehow less worthy of support.

Democrats are not saints in these kinds of issues. It would be stupid for anyone to assume having a D next to a politician's name means that person is a saint.

This is just a continuation of the false equivalence nonsense that makes me want to go full on HULK SMASH

[S.E. TN Liberal]

108. The Polack MSgt,

Hey, I vote for Democrats because they raise my standard of living. I believe they do a better job of treating people equally.

It does not mean I think any of them are infallible.

Believing Democrats have no faults is a rather stupid belief in my opinion.

[sunRISEnow]

113. "Believing Democrats have no faults"

When did this become the conversation? Who in the world thinks anything or anyone "has no faults"? Are you suggesting only perfection is acceptable and all other is a fail? The whole premise in the conversation is "ideal" by individual definition cannot be had by any politician or anyone and certainly is not going to happen with very large groups of people.

Liberals in general do not think in such black and white. It is a fools error.

[betsuni]

121. It's a silly talking point.

Just like the one about Dems not being progressive, not having an economic message, and not wanting universal health care.

[Cha]

123. Not just "Democrats".. By Drake Bennett June 24, 2007

"At a panel at last week's Take Back America conference, an annual gathering of progressive activists and politicians, three of the Senate's most liberal members -- Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar -- flatly declared themselves against impeachment. Even Rep. John Conyers, a fierce Bush critic who in 2005 filed a bill calling for possible impeachment proceedings, has backed away from the idea -- despite the fact that his wife sponsored the Detroit city council's own unanimously approved impeachment resolution.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/06/24/the_i_word/

[Cha]

124. Maybe you could ask Bernie Sanders.. he

evidently was against Impeachment for bush, too.

[Snackshack]

2. Yep.

Very true.

[sandensea]

3. True - but then, what choice did they have?

Dubya had made it clear he would keep himself way above the law, using continuity-of-government powers if need be.

And Cheney himself went to Congress to threaten them with declaring martial law, with Blackwater as shock troops - a credible threat if there ever was one.

[OneBro]

7. None of that applied after Obama was in office.

At a minimum, there should have been investigations and hearings re the Iraq war AND the causes for the 2008 financial crisis.

[jalan48]

11. Yes, we had the Presidency and both the Senate and the House. We could have held investigations into

the torture that occurred under the Bush Administration. And as the poster has stated, here we are today with one of the chief offenders about to become head of the CIA.

[JI7]

13. that's because of white voters who largely went for Bush and Trump and most Republicans

those people don't care about these issues.

[jalan48]

14. I'm not following what you are saying. In 2009 we controlled the government. We had the power to

investigate the torture. What does this have to do with white voters? We were in charge.

[JI7]

17. that we are here today because of how mostly white people voted

they voted for Bush also.

if one has a problem with torture they would not have voted for trump.

[jalan48]

19. Interesting argument.

[choie]

22. What does that have to do with it?

That doesn't absolve the Obama administration, along with the Democratic members of congress from failing to hold war criminals responsible.

[JI7]

26. They are held responsible by working to elect Democrats. independent Bernie Sanders didn't do

anything either but you are fine with that.

[shanny]

102. Why are you pulling Bernie into this?

Was he president? Did independents control the White House, Senate and / or House?

Classic whataboutism.

[JI7]

106. He opposed impeachment

[shanny]

118. Of whom? Bush?

So was Pelosi. Of course the discussion was about the lack of action by Democrats once they gained power in 2006 and 2008. Is there some reason to single out Bernie?

[bettyellen]

133. All of 2009? I don't think that's true. Weren't there gaps in the senate- Losing one person mattered

And then you have people like Lieberman who you couldn’t actually count. I think we could have started an investigation and had it disrupted.

[Mr.Bill]

70. I've heard some say that it was still going on then.

Who knows? We have to trust our elected officials' oversight of our intelligence agencies. That trust has not been earned very much in recent decades.

[stevenleser]

126. We did hold investigations and there were also lawsuits. Please do the research.

Federal Govt Investigations:

Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_report_on_CIA_torture

OPR Investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos#OPR_investigation

Lawsuits

Padilla against Yoo lawsuite for writing memos that said torture was legal. Padilla lost:
https://www.wired.com/2012/05/yoo-torture-lawsuit/

Salim vs Mitchell, settled last August: https://www.aclu.org/news/cia-torture-psychologists-settle-lawsuit

Lawsuit vs TItan and L3 (defendants won) https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/abu-ghraib-lawsuits-against-caci-titan-now-l-3-0

and plenty more.

[DeminPennswoods]

29. Obama was still trying to be nice to Republicans

He campaigned on being a bi-partisan president and working with Rs. I also think he got bad advice from Panetta, Gates and their ilk who argued that agents shouldn't be punished for instituting policies that came from Bush/Cheney WH. He should've let his moral compass guide him rather than political calculation.But, the 9/11 attacks were still relatively fresh in everyone's minds and my sense is Obama just didn't want to deal with a moral reckoning on top of the financial mess the US was in then, too. I do believe a reckoning will happen eventually and people will be held accountable.

[vi5]

53. "still"

Saying he was "still" trying to be nice to Republicans implies that there was a time when he "stopped" trying to be nice to Republicans.

That should have happened after what everyone in the world witnessed after his first 2 years in office. But it never came. He apparently held out hope until the very end that everyone was just going to come around and realize that bipartisanship was the way to go.

[DeminPennswoods]

77. It's his nature to be concilliatory

It just is part of who he was/is/will be.

[sharedvalues]

87. Yes. +100. It's Obama's personality.

The next president we need someone who is more of a fighter. A FDR type.

[vi5]

127. Yes, and in modern politics that is a fatal flaw.

I would also say that he also genuinely had a streak of conservative economic beliefs as well which didn't help when combined with that conciliatory nature. There was definitely a part of him that wanted to believe that it would be a combination of social programs AND tax cuts which would help the economy. And that if given some freedom businesses will do the right thing. And that made the recovery and other initiatives like the ACA more tenuous and fragile than it needed to be and more easily undone than they would have been otherwise.

But at this point what is done is done and obviously there was more good than bad to his presidency. But next time around we do need someone who is more of a fighter and who recognizes what decades of facts and data tell us which is that any economic policy rooted in trickle down theory and any policy or plan which depends at all on businesses and corporations doing the right thing is not going to last.

[elmac]

5. taking the high road never works

it just emboldens the fascist to do even worse things. We need our party to be as mean and nasty as the fascists, but for good, not evil.

[smirkymonkey]

6. I agree. We have to be as ruthless and as nasty as they are to achieve our aims.

The future of our country depends upon it. I think that is why so many people are responding positively to Avenatti. He is aggressive and he plays their game at their level and he is winning.

[SunSeeker]

9. He's aggressive, but he's not a liar.

So in that sense, he is not playing their game. Their game is to lie. Because they must. We don't lie. Because the truth is on our side. But we are often not nearly aggressive enough with the truth. We too often think the truth speaks for itself. It does not. Sadly.

[elmac]

41. the fascists know that if you tell a big enough lie

over and over again it becomes true. They own the news media so the echo machines are working for them. When we tell the truth no one knows because the news networks ignore it. The Democratic party must always be the party of truth but the truth can be used as a weapon against the fascists and their news networks. Going along with any fascist legislation, including keeping the government open, was a big mistake. They need to unite to stop everything and it will be painful, but until they do we will see tRump and worse in our future.

[Garrett78]

18. Here is one of the most important articles I've read this year:

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17258866/democratic-party-republicans-trump-election

Democrats in Congress really need to take that advice to heart.

They go low and we go high...and they have the White House, US House, US Senate, most state legislatures and a majority of governorships.

[smirkymonkey]

25. Thanks! Great article!

[CrispyQ]

58. Excellent interview!

The Republicans are already fighting court wars, and they’re winning. Obviously, the Merrick Garland story speaks for itself, but they also held up Obama’s judicial nominees throughout his entire term in office, including hardly allowing him to appoint anyone to the federal courts in his last few years, after they took the Senate.

McConnell recently bragged that he's making generational changes to the judiciary. He is, & some of those appointments rightly should have been Obama's. Unfortunately, I don't think today's dem leadership is up to playing th kind of hardball this guy talks about. We have a few bulldogs, but as a collective they're too accommodating.

[Beartracks]

60. Plus, our bulldogs are all one anonymous accusation away from...

... their fellow Dems railroading them out of office for not being perfect their entire life.

=========

[CrispyQ]

128. This.

A career republican is running as a dem for Franken's seat. I don't care that it's Richard Painter, who is speaking out against Trump at the moment. At his core, he's a republican & now he's running as a dem. Are you happy now, dem leadership?

[yonder]

27. +1.

[choie]

20. How is defending

The constitution, international law and human rights not taking the "high road?" Other countries hold their leaders responsible for war crimes - why don't we?

[JI7]

8. how about the Independent Bernie Sanders ? he opposed impeachment also

Trump and BUsh both won because they got a lot of white votes .

[Hekate]

10. Oh did he now? Didn't he also want someone to primary President Obama?

Bernie is a real funny guy...

[choie]

21. Really? That's your response?

Bernie was against impeaching Bush so that takes the onus away from Obama, Pelosi etc.not holding the former admin. accountable?

[Wwcd]

33. That's your answer? Did bernie challenge the decision or did he go along with it also?

I don't recall him making any opposition.
At least be fair.

[Blue_true]

47. Bernie was ok with that decision. How is he any different if you want to blame?

Bernie also chose to not cause more distress in an environment of chaos.

[choie]

65. he is equally to blame

more distress in an environment of chaos. You wouldn't say that if it were another country - or party.

[Blue_true]

74. I wasn't the one who started the blame laying. nt

[BlueJac]

79. Impeachment is not the answer to Trump...

worse measures must be taken.

[still_one]

83. Interestingly some folks don't grasp that it takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate for a conviction for

impeachment and removal from office to happen.

Even if every Democrat in the Senate voted for impeachment, we would not have had the 2/3 majority

[JI7]

86. I'm sure they get it or don't care

The goal is to hurt Democrats who actually would oppose toture as obama did.

Reality doesn't matter.

[Cha]

120. " three of the Senate's most liberal members -- Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar --

"At a panel at last week's Take Back America conference, an annual gathering of progressive activists and politicians, three of the Senate's most liberal members -- Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar -- flatly declared themselves against impeachment. Even Rep. John Conyers, a fierce Bush critic who in 2005 filed a bill calling for possible impeachment proceedings, has backed away from the idea -- despite the fact that his wife sponsored the Detroit city council's own unanimously approved impeachment resolution.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/06/24/the_i_word/

[Duppers]

12. Exactly!

I still do not support a certain person that cannot be named here.

[Canoe52]

15. Thought I remembered hearing that the crap done to Bill Clinton by the repugs was

in retaliation to Nixon being forced out. Is that correct?

[choie]

23. So? Does that mean that

an administration that condoned and conducted torture shouldn't be brought to justice? Because the Democrats are concerned they'll be seen as retaliatory? Their refusal to do anything has emboldened this and future administrations to break the law without fear. We have now normalized torture and war crimes to the point where the likes of John Bolton and Gina Haspel can have important roles in our government.

[Canoe52]

31. Was asking in reference to the OPs statement

as to why the lack of effort to take repugs to task on torture or any other of the crap they pull.

Personally I think anyone who is pro-torture isn’t fit to live in a civilized society.

[MFM008]

24. I wonder

If anyone told W what exactly happened while he was in office...........

[Tiggeroshii]

28. This truth bomb just blew my house up

[jodymarie aimee]

30. Steve Schmidt said

Haspel deserves prosecution, not a promotion.

[Wwcd]

32. Where was Bernie in challenging "the cowardly Dems"?

I don't recall Indy bernie raising the issue of prosecuting the Bush admin, either.

You forgot to include the Independents like bernie also.
Just wanted to be fair here.
Thanks

[JI7]

36. no, he opposed impeachment also

no candidate has ran on prosecuting the Bush admin.

[betsuni]

34. Maybe they wanted health care for Americans without health insurance instead.

[JI7]

37. and that's what they ran on

no candidate has ran on prosecuting the Bush administration which is stupid anyways. we have elections for a reason . that's how we usually hold elected officials accountable.

[betsuni]

38. And yet there are still people insisting Dems only run on negative campaigns.

And have no message and don't stand for anything. Hmmmm.

[choie]

40. I see...so it's only non elected officials

who are prosecuted for crimes. Then you should be fine with Mueller giving up his investigation and letting the electorate decide Trump's fate in 2020.

[malaise]

35. +1,000

Rec

[no_hypocrisy]

39. IMO, here's the trade-off if * and Cheney had been prosecuted:

1) No ACA and

2) this country would have gone off the financial cliff.


Sometimes you can't have everything you want. The circumstances just didn't permit what was necessary.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

52. Bringing reality into

the discussion and all that.

[jalan48]

42. I've never understood how Germans could turn a blind eye to what Hitler was doing.

I'm beginning to see how it happens.

[choie]

49. Exactly.

[disillusioned73]

129. Ding-ding..

[BannonsLiver]

43. It only took 7 posts for someone to blame Obama

I figured it would only take 5 to put all the blame on the black guy (as the OP did in one of their replies) so I was a little off. But hey I guess that’s progress!

[choie]

48. What the hell does Obama being black

Have to do with this - I blamed Pelosi et al. Some on this site have become so sycophantic toward Democrats and independents (yes that includes Bernie) that we can't even question their decisions? They made a serious mistake that will haunt us for a long time to come.

[disillusioned73]

130. How many was your guess..

before Bernie was blamed.. cause, that happened as well

[NurseJackie]

44. Yawn.

...the Dems' cowardly decision...

Yawn.

[betsuni]

45. Yes.

[G_j]

46. absolutely

correct

[stonecutter357]

51. cool story bro !

[ismnotwasm]

54. Jesus fucking Christ.

[sunRISEnow]

68. Sing it sister, just that.

[pwb]

55. She won't torture. She will let a private company like black water do it.

Privatized torture. The best country on earth? Hmmmm?

[librechik]

56. soooo right. n/t

[SidDithers]

57. ...

Sid

[farmbo]

59. Attention All Democrats: {Ooooga.. Ooooga!!} Convene circular firing squad!

We’ve got to stem this silly wave of voter enthusiasm by blaming Democrats for Trump’s nomination of a deranged torture enthusiast for a cabinet post because... Purity!

Ready... fire... Aim!

[choie]

66. Attention all Democrats!

Don't take any responsibility for bad judgment that helped to enable a thug to nominate a torturer for head of the CIA. You can't get your head around the truth, huh? Simply put: if the Bush administration was held accountable for torture, it is likely that a subsequent administration wouldn't be able to nominate a torturer for a government position. Why? Because they would know that the American people, including the other branches of government would not stand for it. People who torture and condone torture should face justice. That isn't a quaint idealist belief - it's the fucking law.

[farmbo]

95. Sorry, I'm still not buying your premise.

As you’ll recall, under the cover of the USA Patriot Act, Bush & Cheney dispatched John Yoo and a phalanx of other DOJ officials to craft the legal rationale for torture— or as they (and the Media) called it “enhanced interrogation”. Based on their policy memoranda, Bush signed Executive Orders authorizing its use.

Their work was all BS from start to finish, but it formed the “legal basis” for the CIA/ NSA’s activities.

Talk about a quaint idealistic belief, you’re naive if you think an Obama Special prosecutor could get a unanimous jury verdict of guilty under these circumstances— particularly in the majority Republican DC Circuit. And the consequences of an acquittal (or a Grand Jury “ no bill”) would have institutionalized torture as a means of interrogation into the foreseeable future. Instead, Obama came in and put a stop to it.

Do you really believe that Donald Trump gives a tinker’s damn about what the “American People” stand for?? Wrong. His is a government of the Fox News viewers, by the Fox News viewers, and for the Fox News viewers. He is an irredeemable, right wing megalomaniac and your rage over this nomination should be focused against him, and not against Obama and the Democrats.

Sorry, but the only thing tortured in this whole hot mess is your logic.

[zentrum]

61. KKKK+RRRRR++++

[Progressive dog]

67. The prosecution of crimes is not supposed to

be political. All Americans, not just Democrats, are supposed to know that.

[choie]

69. That's right. If anybody tortures

they should be prosecuted, that goes for all Americans, and should not be based on political calculations.

[Progressive dog]

73. So write the justice department and stop

blaming Democrats for not interfering, where the rule of law says they shouldn't.
You seem to be obsessed with finding a way to blame Democrats for torture. You should write Jeff Sessions, he might be willing to help. Hey, maybe he could pin it on Hillary.

[Nitram]

72. Stop blaming Democrats for trying to hold the country together.

Democrats passed laws reinforcing the prohibition on torture. Keep your eye on the prize: the midterms and a congressional majority.

[BlueJac]

76. Gutlesss...

that is why I am concerned now. This is nothing new, but a possible end to our Democracy could be a stake! And I see quite a few people have their excuses ready for taking no action. Unreal!

[Demsrule86]

78. We never had the votes in the Senate for conviction...thus impeachment would have been foolish. We

also would not have gotten the house and Senate in 2006 had we impeached Bush...which paved the way for the ACA which was way more important than the empty gesture impeachment would have been without conviction...feel good but totally counterproductive...Democrats did the right thing.

[still_one]

80. Bullshit. Unless you have a 2/3 majority in the Senate, impeachment isn't going to happen. Perhaps

if some of those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, and instead of voted third party, or not voting at all, not only helped give us trump on a silver platter, but facilitated so every Democrat who ran for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican.

I use the word SELF-IDENTIFIED, because REAL PROGRESSIVES VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, knowing what the stakes were for civil rights, women's rights, worker's rights, environmental rights, healthcare, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. etc. etc.

It is really tiresome hearing the phony bullshit from some who don't seem to understand what it means when you don't have the votes

[sharedvalues]

81. Cowardly. Torture is a nonnegotiable American value.

Jay Bybee should have been prosecuted, and should not be a federal judge.

John Yoo is a criminal who should not be a professor at Berkeley. It shocks me that Cal students don’t protest his every class.

If we don’t punish those who committed the sins of torture, what incentive is there for future individuals who are willing to shred American values to hold back from torture?

[GulfCoast66]

84. Always someone here blaming democrats

Was everyone here asleep during those years? Prosecuting may have been popular on places like DU, but it was not something the nation as a whole or even the majority of Democrats supported. It just was not even on the table and would have been political suicide.

But feel free to rewrite history in an attempt to demoralize Democrats. We see enough of that here.

[kurtcagle]

85. Not prosecuting

As I remember it, the economy was in free fall when Obama was elected, and the first order of business was to try to get it back on its feet. The second order of business was getting out of Afghanistan, and the third (the signature piece of that administration, was Obamacare). By the time that these three things were done, the Republicans had regained control of the House and Senate, and were busy stonewalling.

Additionally, there has been a long standing precedent (for good or ill) that an incoming administration should not investigate an outgoing one, for fear of it being used in turn as a political weapon the next time the government changed hands. It is part of the reason why Republican leadership in either house has been reluctant to actually force another investigation into Clinton, even as some of the more extreme idiots continue to call for it. However, that doesn't mean it won't happen - too many in the GOP seem to feel they will be in power forever, which may be a dangerous stance to take.

[still_one]

88. We are here because some self-identified progressives refused to vote for the Democratic nominee,

using the same bullshit LIE they used in 2000, that there was no difference between republicans and Democrats, and doing whatever they could to undermine, distort, and encourage people NOT to vote

This thread is pure flame-bait, and the OP knows perfectly well that the votes WERE NOT THERE to remove bush, even if every Democrat in the Senate voted to convict.

It is just a lame attempt to divide and trash Democrats.

I guess things must be boring for those over at JPR

[sunRISEnow]

91. I read a comic say, we that learn from the past have to live thru all those that did not learn from

the past. That is where I feel I am now. For most of us, it is a real duh. For too many, they seem to have to keep experiencing the same over and over again.

[still_one]

92. Well stated

[mcar]

100. +1

[FSogol]

134. +1, Exactly. Divide, divide, divide. n/t

[Scurrilous]

89. ...

[stevenleser]

97. No, you are wrong. I'll explain to you why that couldn't happen. John Ashcroft and John Yoo

Because of their memos, those crimes are not able to be prosecuted.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo#Regarding_torture_of_detainees

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos

When the Attorney General and Deputy Assistant Attorney General write a memo saying a certain act is legal, you cannot be prosecuted for performing that act. Those memos are a guaranteed get out of prosecution/jail card.

Democrats knew that and knew that what would happen is that if we attempted to bring charges, something even worse would happen, those charges would be dismissed based on the memos, in effect calling the torture legal.

Finally, you claim that "Democrats made a decision not to hold the Bush administration accountable" for torture, etc., but in fact, the Obama administration engaged in a lengthy investigation of what went on and concluded that what happened could not be prosecuted.

[peggysue2]

109. Excellent response, Steve

The wayback machine is very useful in tamping down the ongoing whataboutism or spurious arguments that Dems and Republicans are somehow the same.

The GOP covered its ass on the question of torture with the pretzel logic of John Yoo and his legal team. The work was given a nod and signature at the Justice Department and off to the races we go. Waterboarding, a practice that had been deemed torture after WWII--we actually executed Japanese officers for war crimes over the same technique--was with the stroke of a pen reversed to suit the predilections of Cheney and his cohorts. They will argue to this day that none of these techniques are/were torturous and yet those who have actually experienced waterboarding and several other 'enhanced interrogation' methods unanimously disagree.

Their are no saints in the world. But when it comes to basic morality, trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number? I'll stick with the Democratic Party, thank you very much.

[TiberiusB]

111. No, Yoo's memos were worthless...

No, that is 100% wrong. From Harper's...

"...those asking for the memo were looking for a get-out-of-jail-free pass from the Department of Justice, and Yoo’s memos were supposed to provide it. Viewed in this light, what Yoo crafted makes perfect sense ... Of course this means his memos were cover-your-ass specials, and as such they are probably not effective to provide the sort of legal shield that those who sought them expected.

[stevenleser]

112. That is one person's opinion and it is not correct.

Try asking an appellate lawyer who handles Federal cases. Horton is biased as he often represents people on the other side of where Yoo stands. The fact that I probably agree with what he is fighting for doesnt mean that he would be right on the actual application of the law.

If you get a memo from the US Attorney General saying what you are doing is legal according to Federal law, there is basically ZERO chance you can be successfully prosecuted for it in federal court.

[redgreenandblue]

132. Torture is against international law. American laws need not apply.

The correct thing to do for the Obama administration would have been to turn the people suspected of being involved in torture over to an international court and let that court sort out who was guilty of exactly what. The decision not to act weakened international law and made it much harder to argue against things like the Russian invasion of Crimea.

[stevenleser]

135. We regularly turn people over, when Interpol issues an international warrant.

If there had been a request to turn people over, what you wrote would make sense.

But since there wasn’t such a request, what you wrote doesn’t make sense

[TiberiusB]

136. Three more links...it's not one person's opinion

Yoo wasn't the Attorney General, he was Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. Close, but not the same.

Presidents, at least when the government is functioning properly, cannot shield themselves from criminal liability or impeachment simply by getting a CYA memo written by a Federalist flunky like Yoo. Using that logic, the President can immunize himself from anything and everything. He could conceivably shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose a single supporter...

Washington Post:

Abraham D. Sofaer, a State Department legal adviser from 1985 to 1990, said he also considers the August 2002 memo flawed. "We in the Reagan and Bush administrations intended that deliberate violations of the Convention [Against Torture] should lead to the criminal prosecution," said Sofaer, who testified for the executive branch during Senate hearings on the convention's ratification.

Sofaer said he believes the notion of "inherent" presidential authority to ignore the treaty is vague and has little basis

.

The Torture Memos: The Case Against the Lawyers:

The United States is legally bound by the Convention Against Torture to submit any case alleging torture by a person within its jurisdiction “to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.” President Obama and Attorney General Holder have both stated that waterboarding is torture. Accordingly, the United States is legally obligated to investigate not merely those CIA interrogators who went beyond waterboarding, but the lawyers and Cabinet officers who authorized waterboarding and other torture tactics in the first place.

Frontline:

Now, that particular argument, so far as I can tell, is not accepted by the mainstream at all of legal opinion in this country. In the memo, you do not see cited major precedents. The actual key precedents on issues of presidential power, one of which is Youngstown Steel, which had to do with President Truman seizing the steel mills during the Korean War, very famous case, key case on the limitation of presidential power, it's not even in the memo.

So in order to argue that in essence these are nonpolitical arguments, these are simply lawyers telling you what they believe, it seems to me you have to have at least a mildly convincing argument that the legal homework has been done. And if you look at these documents, as far as I can tell, the legal homework hasn't been done. What they are doing is arguing very strongly a particular position in the guise of giving you a neutral legal opinion. …

[stevenleser]

138. None of those three links or your excerpts opine on the contention at hand

And that is if you have a federal department of Justice memo saying that an activity is legal, it is a get out of jail free card for that activity regarding federal prosecution.

[stevenleser]

115. Furthermore, a Federal appeals court has ruled on a tangential point and found in favor of Yoo

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/yoo-torture-lawsuit/

Hearing Yoo's appeal, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Yoo's contention that he should be immune from the suit because it was not clearly established that harsh treatment was unconstitutional. Padilla claims he "suffered gross physical and psychological abuse" by government authorities, which included death threats, psychotropic drugs, shackling and manacling, and being subjected to noxious fumes and constant surveillance.

"It was not 'beyond debate' at that time that Padilla – who was not a convicted prisoner or criminal defendant, but a suspected terrorist designated an enemy combatant and confined to military detention by order of the president – was entitled to the same constitutional protections as an ordinary convicted prisoner or accused criminal," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the 3-0 appeals court.

Fisher added that, even today, "it remains murky whether an enemy combatant detainee may be subjected to conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation that would be unconstitutional if applied in the ordinary prison and criminal settings."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So as worthless as Horton claimed the memos were, apparently, the 9th Circuit didn't think Yoo's contentions were so off base.

[stevenleser]

116. And here, it is explicitly stated that Justice Dept memos are a get out of jail free card

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html

When Goldsmith was asked, four years ago, to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, he jumped at the opportunity. Working for the office is one of the most prestigious jobs in government: former heads and deputies include the Supreme Court Justices William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. The Office of Legal Counsel interprets all laws that bear on the powers of the executive branch. The opinions of the head of the office are binding, except on the rare occasions when they are reversed by the attorney general or the president.

In the post-9/11 era, the office has played a crucial role in providing legal cover to jittery bureaucrats fearful that officials in the White House, Defense and State Departments or the C.I.A. might be prosecuted for their actions in the war on terror. The Justice Department, after all, is the branch of government responsible for prosecutions, and its own prosecutors — as well as independent counsels — would be hard pressed to prosecute someone who had relied on the department’s own opinions in good faith. For this reason, the office has two important powers: the power to put a brake on aggressive presidential action by saying no and, conversely, the power to dispense what Goldsmith calls “free get-out-of jail cards” by saying yes. Its opinions, he writes in his book, are the equivalent of “an advance pardon” for actions taken at the fuzzy edges of criminal laws

[TiberiusB]

137. From the same article...

Goldsmith considered these opinions, now known as the “torture memos,” to be tendentious, overly broad and legally flawed, and he fought to change them.

[stevenleser]

139. Again, that has nothing to do with the central fact

And I suggest you ask any appellate lawyer who deals with federal law, if you have a memo from the federal dept of justice saying that an activity is legal, you cannot be successfully prosecuted for that activity in a federal court.

[BlueTsunami2018]

117. A lot of Dems knew about it and were ok with it.

That’s why nothing was done. Let’s not kid ourselves.

And many people who oppose Тяцмр and who ostensibly are on our side want her to be confirmed.

None of this is one sided but the only side that has some opposition to all of it is the Democratic side.

[stevenleser]

122. Besides Joe Lieberman, name some. nt

[summer_in_TX]

119. In 2006 I participated in DC rallies calling for impeachment.

Even made an appointment to talk to my Democratic member of Congress who I'd known since I was a teen because my mother had worked tirelessly on his campaigns at the state house, judicial, and federal level. He was very liberal and I was sure he'd favor impeachment. To my disappointment, he wasn't open to the idea. But I didn't realize the reasons he refused, and he didn't explain:
1) The US Senate was split 50-50 with Dick Cheney as tie-breaker;
2) Needed 2/3 (67 votes) to successfully impeach in the Senate;
3) That the Yoo memos were get-out-of-jail-free cards.

I thought for our national soul, we needed to confront the evil done in our name and bring the darkness into the light.

I assumed that his refusal (and that of other Dems) was due to a pent-up hunger to get legislation done after six years of being shut out of legislating. I didn't understand that it was actually something where success was impossible so House Dems didn't want to waste political capital on an effort they realized wouldn't work.

I learned a lot reading this thread, and now understand why they didn't pursue impeachment at the time.

[still_one]

125. Well said

[ehrnst]

131. Yep, doing it for "the national soul" isn't something covered in the Constitution.

Like Al Gore "giving up" after SCOTUS ruled on Gore v. Bush.

I know those who were angry because it was "so disheartening to his supporters."

Al is a lawyer, and knew it was over. Democratic leaders knew that impeachment would be futile.

We mocked the GOP for voting continuously to "repeal and replace" Obamacare when it was not going to be possible politically.