Why Snowden shouldn't be charged with espionage until after Dick Cheney is.

[Cleita]

This is an oldie from 2011 but deserves a look again today considering the rabid, foaming at the mouth hunt and pursuit of Edward Snowden by our government for espionage and the variety of other charges involving treason. There is no way he should be put on trial until after Dick Cheney is for the same offenses. This was Medea Benjamin's reaction to Dick Cheney's book signing deal for his memoirs.

August 29th, 2011 3:24 PM
Ten Reasons to Move Cheney’s Book to the Crime Section
By Medea Benjamin

Former Vice President Dick Cheney was given a multi-million contract to write a book about his political career. According to Cheney’s media hype, the book, called In My Time, will have “heads exploding all over Washington.” The Darth Vader of the Bush administration offers no apologies and feels no remorse. But peace activists around the country are stealthily gearing up to visit bookstores, grab a stack of books, and deposit them where they belong—the Crime Section.

Here are ten of Cheney’s many offenses to inspire you to move Cheney’s book, and to insert these bookmarks explaining why the author of In My Time should be “doin’ time.”

She goes on with a laundry list of his crimes including the following acts of his that have resulted in what we are discussing today in reference to NSA, FISA and Edward Snowden.

4. Violating basic rights. Cheney shares responsibility for holding thousands of prisoners without charges and without the fundamental right to the writ of habeas corpus, and for keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross. He sanctioned kidnapping people and simply rendering them to secret overseas prisons. His authorization of the arbitrary detention of Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans–without due process, without charges, and without access to counsel–was in gross violation of U.S. and international law. A fan of indefinite detention in Guantanamo, Cheney writes in his book that he has been “happy to note” that President Obama failed to honor his pledge to close the Guantánamo prison.

And most importantly this:

7. Abusing executive privilege: Cheney used executive privilege to refuse to comply with over a dozen Congressional subpoenas related to improper firing of Federal attorneys, torture, election violations and exposing—for political retribution–the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation.

8. Spying on us. Cheney was the mastermind behind the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program that spied on thousands, perhaps millions of American citizens on American soil. This massive government interference with personal phone calls and emails was in violation of FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), the Federal Telecommunications Act, and 4th Amendment of the Constitution.

Bold type is mine.

More at link:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/ten-reasons-to-move-cheneys-book

This is not long but a very good summary of the acts of the war criminal Dick Cheney while he was in the office of the Vice President.

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R

[Cleita]

2. Throw Darth Cheney into prison and throw the key away. eom

[Catherina]

3. +1000000 n/t

[99Forever]

4. And who was it that...

... decided not to prosecute Cheney?

Oh yeah...


... the same exact persons that now are telling us that the one who informed us of THEIR crimes against the Constitution and OUR rights is "our" enemy.

[Major Hogwash]

5. Doesn't work that way. Move back 2 spaces and lose your next turn.

If you guys want to play the "Justice For All" game, you'll have to understand that 1 of those people was the former Vice President of the United States, and the other was not!!!

[The Second Stone]

6. Elected officials have an exemption for criminal violations of the law?

Not that I am aware. Elected officials are obliged to follow the same laws as the rest of us. See United States v. Nixon. Allowing government officials to ignore the law is far more a recipe for tyranny than mere government employees ignoring the law.

There seems to be probable cause to charge Snowden for criminal violations. Same as Cheney.

[Cleita]

7. More the reason. The Veep swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Not only is he gullty of war crimes but of violating his oath of office.

[totodeinhere]

10. That doesn't make any difference. The law applies to all, not just some.

The only exception is a sitting president who cannot be indicted until he or she leaves office.

[hughee99]

8. I'm sure Holder will get right on it and charge Cheney with doing things that are STILL being done

by the current administration.

[totodeinhere]

11. That probably is the main reason why they don't indict Bush and Cheney and Rummy among others.

How can Holder in good conscience indict people for doing things that the administration he is a part of is continuing to do?

[99th_Monkey]

9. Full-throated K & R!! eom

[randome]

12. So no one should be tried for murder until after Zimmerman is in jail, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cleita]

13. Did Snowden murder anyone? That's news to me. n/t

[randome]

15. Same concept, isn't it?

What crime and what evidence do you think would convict Bush and/or Cheney?

And Snowden did murder something. Common sense. I've never seen Democrats behave so childishly as I have during the Snowden Affair.

I thought one of the things that distinguished us from Conservatives was our capacity to go wherever the evidence leads, no matter the consequences.

S&G have shown us no evidence of crimes committed by the NSA. What they have done is to make a loud proclamation that they don't agree with the rules and laws as written. They did this by stealing national security documents and running off to Hong Kong and now Russia, in the process giving sensitive information to Chinese journalists and Der Spiegel.

Their opinions should not be swallowed whole without a good deal of 'seasoning' -as in evidence- to wash them down with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

16. I think you have a problem with perspective. Cheney, The Dick, was responsible for the murder of

arguably hundreds of thousands including tens of thousands of children. He tortured and flaunted it. How can you compare what he did with Snowden, a whistle-blower.

It's an authoritarian trait to side with Cheney over a whistle-blower.

[randome]

17. What crime and what evidence is there to bring against Bush & Cheney?

And if you think for one moment that I am not mad as hell about what they did to this country and to Iraq, you would be wrong.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

20. I guess we first must establish whether or not you think they committed crimes. Do you? nm

[randome]

22. They covered themselves with the ridiculous 'finding' that waterboarding was not torture.

That's how it would be argued in a court. The Executive Branch has a hell of a lot of leeway in deciding how to conduct foreign policy.

They committed crimes against decency but I don't know of one that's on the books they could be found guilty of.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

24. There are national and international laws against torture. "They covered themselves.." Oh plez.

They gave themselves "get out of jail" cards. How legal is that? A good prosecutor would murder them.

And if we investigated there are many, many laws they broke. How about outing Valerie Plame? How about Cheney getting rich off of Halliburton shares while giving them "no bid" contracts. The problem is that Cheney belongs to the same club as Obama and Snowden belongs to our club. The 1% are not held accountable.

[randome]

28. How about prosecuting Great Britain? Australia? Any of those other countries?

What the world did to Iraq is beyond contemptible. But how are you going to start proceedings against the world for going along with America in the first place?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

31. The "world" didnt go alone. Only those that we owned lock stock and barrel. Even they only

sacrificed a tiny fraction compared to our thousands of troops dead and tens of thousands wounded. We spent $1 trillion dollars that the lower classes cant afford. Bush and Cheney need to be punished.

We have allowed war crimes since at least Nixon, go unpunished. They will continue until we convince our so-called "leaders" that we dont want to be the big bully in the world.

[JoeyT]

21. Well, we could try interviews they've given.

The DOJ shouldn't have too much trouble finding it. It was on national television. Waterboarding is torture and torture is still a war crime, it's just one we refuse to prosecute.

[randome]

23. He has a 'finding' that says waterboarding is not torture and he says he doesn't believe it is.

Not sure how that could be used against him. He could always argue in court that while the finding was in effect, waterboarding was not torture.

And he might be right in a legal sense. Certainly there would be disagreement among any jury that heard evidence against him.

There is nothing to be gained by prosecuting Bush, Jr. and Cheney. Except revenge. In this case, I would not mind that but it would take an enormous effort, would deepen the political divisions and result in a morass that might take years to crawl out from under.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[rhett o rick]

25. I couldnt disagree more. Their "findings" dont absolve their war crimes.

They are guilty of murdering tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi children and you are willing to forgive that. Until we make this right with ourselves and the world, we are but a bunch of hypocrites. It will be hard but necessary to start the healing.

Prosecuting criminals isnt revenge.

[randome]

30. I don't forgive them for anything.

I just don't see how you can prosecute Bush, Jr. and Cheney successfully when a good deal of the rest of the world went along with them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jim Lane]

26. Under the Nuremberg standards they would both be subject to death by hanging.

One count of the indictments was "Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace."

[randome]

27. They also covered themselves by having, what, thirty other countries join in?

Say what you will about Bush, Jr. and Cheney -and I will agree with the most contemptible assessment of them- but they got a good part of the world to go along with their crimes.

You want to prosecute them? Then you take on the others, as well as the U.N.

Then you have the entirely ridiculous position of America trying to prosecute the rest of the world for going along with America in the first place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jim Lane]

32. You're saying that leaders can commit war crimes with impunity if they find some dupes.

So the Nuremberg trials were wrongful because Italy allied with Nazi Germany?

You refer to "the entirely ridiculous position of America trying to prosecute the rest of the world for going along with America in the first place." What's actually ridiculous is the idea that any elected government in the U.S. would take international law seriously enough to prosecute war criminals who held office in a previous administration. The political calculation would be clear: Such a prosecution would lose more votes than it would gain. So, given that the U.S. government would never even prosecute its own people, obviously it wouldn't try to prosecute anyone else.

If it did try that, other countries could plausibly raise the defense that they relied in good faith on representations from the Bush administration that turned out to be lies. I don't know if the Nuremberg principles or subsequent developments of the doctrine include a mens rea element, i.e., is it necessary to prove that the leaders knew that the war was one of aggression rather than self-defense.

[rhett o rick]

14. Problem is that the 1% isnt held to the same standards as the 99%. nm

[Egalitarian Thug]

18. K&R Too bad we're "looking forward" and ignoring global crimes against humanity these days. n/t

[arely staircase]

19. the old two wrongs make a right fallacy

A got away with a crime therefore B shouldn't have to follow the law either.

[sabrina 1]

29. The Democratic Leadership has shamefully protected this most vile War Criminal from

prosecution for his crimes against the US and against Humanity.

So yes, until HE is brought to justice, (never mind his Valerie Plame treason) no one should take seriously any pursuit of the Whistle Blowers who have courageously come forward to expose the crimes that are tearing apart this Democracy.

Where are the calls from the pro-surveillance staters for the prosecution of the War Criminals and the Wall St Criminals, also protected by the Dem Leadership?