Nadler: Obama Violating Law By Not Investigating Bush

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Nadler: Obama Violating Law By Not Investigating Bush

Even as the issue of torture appears likely to burst back onto the public agenda next week -- thanks to the much anticipated release of an internal CIA report -- one of the most progressive voices in Congress is arguing that the Obama White House has a legal obligation to investigate the Bush torture legacy.

New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Huffington Post that he believed that President Obama would be breaking the law if he decided to oppose launching investigation into the authorization of torture.

"If they follow the law they have no choice," Nadler said in an interview this past weekend.

The logic, for Nadler, is straightforward. As a signatory of the convention against torture, and as a result of the anti-torture act of 1996, the United States government is obligated to investigate accusations of torture when they occur in its jurisdiction.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/nadler-obama-violating-la_n_265124.html

[aquart]

1. My beautiful Jerry!

My congressman. Mine. So proud.

[Nite Owl]

2. You are lucky!

I'm jealous.

[Piewhacket]

3. mine bluedogged then boogied on. you got a good man there and I've long known it.

keep him in office for us. :patriot:
alas, I got a minor mess here in Cal. :(

[Chemisse]

7. Lucky you!

[wordpix]

124. lucky you, but I've got a good one, too, from CT

[MasonJar]

4. He is not the first to say so. Johnathan Turley has been very clear about

this point. One would think that Obama as a Constitutional lawyer himself would also be clear about the statutes and the treaties. It is his job to know and to be sure laws are enforced or at the least not to prevent their enforcement. I hope Obama sees this Nadler piece and I hope Nadler reminds the pres personally.

[saigon68]

47. The "Present Occupant" has his own agenda

Its about running to the middle.(And not offending the Rich Corporatists and their ilk)

I think in the long run he will have to be more aggressive. The 15 to 20% of his votes will leave him unless he does something to keep the promises he made to them.

IE spending 14 Billion a month on the War isn't helping the seniors with their health concerns.

I expect the Pukes to field a "Moderate" who after he /she wins in 2012, will move dramatically to the right.

[nashville_brook]

74. Turley is my hero. That said -- i wonder if Obama's odd pull back from justice has to do with

pressure from the intelligence services. I'm reading JFK and The Unspeakable, and I can't imagine that much has changed for the better since then. Especially after 8 years of Cheney at the helm, you have to imagine that the criminals in the military/intelligence services are more empowered than ever.

[mod mom]

81. and don't forget we now have 2 CIAs one government and one privatized (Blackwater/Xe).

:mad:

[Usrename]

102. I cannot forget the first time I ever heard about Turley.

He was the ONLY constitutional authority to testify that Clinton SHOULD be impeached.

In front of the Hyde impeachment subcommittee, out of a panel of about eight or ten experts on the Constitution, he was the single person that that they could find who would mindlessly parrot Henry Hyde's "rule of law, rule of law" idiocy. He seemed to me to be saying then that a president should be impeached for any minor infraction, such as littering, for example, or else the country would lose faith in the rule of law. It's very difficult for me not to consider him the moran that helped to create the nightmare we are living in.

Without his testimony, the the whole Hyde investigation would have been shown to be the total farce that it really was. He gave them legal cover to impeach. He is the ONLY constitutional authority to have done so. He is NOT a hero. Unless you are secretly Ken Starr or KKKarl Rove.

on edit> Dershowitz went so far as to say that under certain circumstances perjury might be considered a High Crime, but he definitely said that Clinton should definitely NOT be impeached under these circumstances, even if convicted of perjury. So did every other scholar who testified under oath in front of the Hyde impeachment hearings.

[wordpix]

125. ugh, that knocks Turley down a peg in my book---he's been right on about BushCo, though

[nashville_brook]

142. it's this political blindness wrt the law that makes his assessments even more powerful

Turley, in his own words RE Clinton impeachment:

I supported the impeachment (despite supporting Clinton) because I believe that perjury on any subject remains a serious crime for the president. No one ever suggested that an affair warranted impeachment — a preposterous position.

Even though I was a strong Clinton supporter throughout the whole Lewinsky business, I see where he is coming from wrt Constitutional Law. To me it's analogous to how the ACLU defends the right to free speech regardless of whether the speech in question issues from peace groups, rap musicians or Nazis. That's the nature of laws -- they're supposed to have to no partisan foundation.

If Turley had ignored the perjury aspect of the Lewinsky affair, his opinions vis a vis the crimes of the Bush administration would hold no water. He'd be nothing but a political mouthpiece.

If he were simply a political pundit, I'd take his stance vis a vis Clinton/Lewinsky to be a major betrayal.

[Usrename]

145. Then he is a shitty lawyer.

It's black letter law.

You cannot EVER charge perjury without identifying the perjurious statement. That was NEVER done by the House, it NEVER appeared in the Articles, Rehnquist NEVER saw this as an obstacle, and evidently, neither does the idiot Turley.

I am no lawyer and even I know that perjury is a VERY specific crime. There are multiple aspects to the crime, NONE of which were ever satisfied. His lawyer did lie in the Paula Jones case, but that was determined by the judge in that case to be an immaterial statement. As a matter of fact, he wasn't even legally under oath during the grand jury testimony, and Henry Hyde knew it. The last statement in the Hyde hearing was made by Bobby Scott on this subject. Henry responded with,"is he going to raise that as a defense?"

If Turley thinks perjury was committed, then where is his proof? Because Ken Starr said so? If he cannot see the whole debacle for the farce that it was then he is a hapless moran.

There never was any evidence (moreless any proof) of any perjury, not single component of the crime ever happened or was ever formally charged.

I'd ask Turley to show me where Clinton was ever legally charged. He cannot, because it did not happen.

Or is he actually saying that any vague accusation of perjury is sufficient to impeach a president?

That's even MORE idiotic.

Sorry for the rant, but if Turley thinks that he is making a legal or constitutional argument here, then it really pisses me off.

He is right about torture though, and that should be some consolation to his fans.

[Stephanie]

5. Nadler was nagged by his constituents for years to support impeachment

He ignored them.

[Chemisse]

8. Much as I would have loved to have seen Bush impeached

It would not have succeeded and it would've made the Dems look vindictive and even destructive. Potentially we could have lost this last election over it.

I'd rather have Obama in office AND some prosecutions of the Bush crowd.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Sadly, I have come to believe you are right.

I'm a big fan of my Congressman Dave Obey, and he has always supported Nancy Pelosi. I once really pissed him off by asking about impeachment; he backed Nancy's off-the-table strategy because he believed, along with her, that an impeachment attempt would have been self-destructive. I disagreed then, not so much in retrospect.

[No Elephants]

42. You don't impeach a war criminal, not to mention his oath to uphold the Constituion, because

you fear you or your party won't be re-elected?

Sorry, that is no profile in courage. If johnson did not put principle above party, we would have no Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You keep the Rule of Law not because everyone obeys the law. You keep it because you punish those who don't, especially if they are in leadership positions. You don't foster respect for law or preserve the rule of law by punishing only the guy who hands a note to a bank teller.

Stick a fork in the rule of law in this country.

[Enthusiast]

50. Well said!

Excellent points.

[mvd]

86. I agree

The Clinton impeachment, while unpopular, did not lead to a Gore landslide. We know he won over Bush, but I believe Clinton hurt Gore. Plus, a Bush impeachment would have had a LOT more substance to it, and there was enough evidence that after an investigation, a strong case could be made:

http://www.impeachbush.tv/progress/dk_aoi_bush/

Now maybe Obama will wait until after health care reform to investigate Buch/Cheney/et al. (he doesn't have to, since investigations could go on in the background.) It's important to the integrity of this country that he investigates.

[omega minimo]

112. If more people were more interested in principle and pride than penises

they would have been GOOD AND PISSED at the Republicans for the witch hunt that was the Starr "investigation," the laws broken by Linda Tripp to entrap Lewinsky and the FARCE that was the Clinton "impeachment." WHAT A LOAD OF HORSESHIT.

"The Clinton impeachment, while unpopular, did not lead to a Gore landslide. We know he won over Bush, but I believe Clinton hurt Gore. Plus, a Bush impeachment would have had a LOT more substance to it, and there was enough evidence that after an investigation, a strong case could be made:"

So, if I read you right and "Clinton hurt Gore" because of (a lurid and bogus) impeachment, I submit my statement above. That phony baloney (I'll try to stop shouting :blush: -- not at you, the whole thing ) ought to have helped Democrats, at least those with the NERVE to call it what it was.

But oh no, Rehnquist put on his gaddammed yellow racing stripes just for the occasion. The Senate spectacle, pomp and circumstances, legitimized the FARCE for future generations, including some here on DU.

The Clinton Fauxpeachment served to water down, devalue, discredit the process in the public eye, even more so than NOT impeaching Reagan/Bush did; paving the way for the Bush gang to get away with two more administrations worth of crimes.

Yes, those of us who remember Watergate have some strong opinions on these matters and understand that that is all part of the plan, part of the mindfu##ing and brainwashing (into zombielike complicity) of the American people that DUers spend a lot of time railing against.

When someone breaks the law and gets caught, enforcement, investigations, courts and/or justice follow sooner, not later.

This notion that we can put this off indefinitely --now and back with the "off the table" thing -- is SO unAmerican, SO HUGE an insult to the foundation of the Constitution and a big FUCK YOU to the Framers, it's mindboggling.

It seems people are fooled into believing that they can sell out their principles, their founding rights and procedures and come back later to find them intact.

Doesn't work like that.

Not meaning to vent the whole thing here, dead mvd, or direct it at you..... one last thing.

The ability of people to be wishy washy and wait, even now, for justice to fall out of the sky -- which by some miracle it just might and lately some rocks have been turned over -- allows them NOT to wonder about the REAL reasons that impeachment was "off the table."

Were our elected representatives under threat by the perpetrators and are they still? What ill forces forced them to sell out their SWORN DUTY to the Constitution?

[mvd]

120. I understand

I'm sure that the partisanship of the Clinton impeachment did sour the whole process for many - meaning that we probably couldn't rush into an impeachment of Bush. But there's just so much Bush did, from lying about the Iraq to the Plame thing to torture to Katrina to the signing statements - that over 8 years there was plenty of time to investigate and impeach. I really think Congress had a duty to do it. :hi:

[omega minimo]

131. DEAR mvd

omg of all the typos... while trying to NOT direct it at you..... :spray: :blush: you are very kind and wise.

:toast:

[chervilant]

123. OMG!!!

Sooooooooooo appreciate your post!!!!!!!!

I'm trying to remain calm, but it's increasingly difficult to absorb that so many people are willing to endorse (or allow through inaction) that big FUCK YOU to the courageous people who were integral to the formation of this great nation!

Pelosi ranks among the politicians who have betrayed our Constitution and our founding fathers. Unless she gets a big clue in a BIG hurry, she will go down in history as an embarrassment to the office she holds.

[omega minimo]

132. It's a mystery.

She's lost all credibility.

[omega minimo]

111. That's amazing.

They made their deal with the Devil, they gambled and won the control of the Hill they wanted.... was it worth it? Since they so far have NOT held Bushco accountable. From your perspective, how did you arrive at "I disagreed then, not so much in retrospect." :hi:

[chervilant]

121. hmmm...

Why, oh, why does anyone offer up feeble and disingenuous assertions that impeachment will be self-destructive?! Why is it acceptable to allow people who have blatantly committed treason to escape their richly deserved consequences?!? How can we defend our actions to our children and our grandchildren if we can so blithely ditch our moral compasses?!?!

As a newly minted teacher, I can assure you that the youth of this country are savvy about our socio-cultural shift away from shouldering personal responsibility, and toward avoiding the challenging work necessitated by the illegal deeds and actions of far too many of our contemporary politicians.

Yeah, much easier to sit on our fat asses in front of our computers and pontificate about why we can't impeach the criminals infesting our government. We so richly deserve what we're about to reap...

[cartach]

34. Impeachment -

Given the track record of the Bush administration how could you possibly dismiss impeachment as vindictive or destructive? Initiation of impeachment proceedings at any time during Bush's presidency would have saved thousands of lives and untold amounts of taxpayer's money by reigning in much of the evil,corrupt practices which were a hallmark of his administration. As your post aptly points out however it's all about the votes isn't it?. Anything to win votes and an election. So what's worse,letting the chips fall where they may in the interests of justice, or going along with and therefore aiding and abetting criminal activity because of popularity concerns and to hell with doing the right thing?

[No Elephants]

44. I wrote Reply 43 before seeing this. Looks as though we may be

kindred spirits, on this issue anyway, and I hope others. :toast:

Welcome, Cartach. :hi:

[Chemisse]

63. I think it is key that the impeachment would not have been successful

We are so mired in partisanship in this country that it's hard for people on either side to step outside of that and act.

For that same reason, impeachment would not have worked. No Republican would have supported it and it would have been played as Democrats being vindictive and destructive.

So what's the point in taking huge political risks when you know it will fail? Instead you can wrestle power away from them at the next election and try to pull us out of the nosedive.

[TankLV]

66. No - ONLY the REPUKES are "mired in "partisanship"!!!

WE Democrats seek JUSTICE!!!

Go spew your repuke talking points elsewhere - We are SO sick and tired of bush* apologists joining up to post their shit here...

[Chemisse]

91. Are you kidding me?

How dare you suggest that I am a Bush apologist. That is completely uncalled for - my post said nothing to like that. I sure am tired of the quickness to slap down anyone with less than 1000 posts under their belts.

So are you saying we must post all exactly alike, within a narrow view, and never dare to suggest that we democrats are partisan as well (or any other slightly negative thing), or else we are labeled Bush apologists!!??

Do you oppose independent thinking altogether or just on DU?

So did you read my journal to see what other 'repuke' things I stand for, to back up your accusation? Clearly not. Did you notice that I am a donater? Not once, but twice I have kicked in money to help DU. It seriously pisses me off to be spoken to this way.

[omega minimo]

113. You didn't know it would fail. You told yourself it would fail and didn't bother TRYING

to "do the right thing" :thumbsdown:

[Usrename]

130. That's complete and utter bullshit.

Impeachment would have worked.


If the Senate Republicans had voted to aquit Bush/Cheney they would have ALL lost their seats.


As a matter of FACT, they all DID lose their seats.


What utter nonsense this is about impeachment would have failed. Total BS. Those senators would have marked for LIFE.

Idiocy.

[grasswire]

136. It doesn't MATTER if the impeachment were "successful"

What matters is that a marker would have been laid down for generations that follow telling them that the American people supported the principles of equal justice under the law and separation of powers -- the bedrock of our Constitution.

No such marker was laid. No such crimes were investigated. Not re: Bush v. Gore. Not re: impeachment for high crimes.

We may never recover from this lapse in protecting our liberties.

[No Elephants]

138. You do the right thing and make people put their vote for the wrong thing on record. You do the

he right thing because it's the right thing.

This was not reluctance to make a public admission of an adulterous bj. It was war crims and shredding to the Constitution, not to mention unjustly enriching the likes of of Halliburtion and Blackwater.You don't look at morals or principles through a prism of whether the outcome is likely to be good or bad for your party. Your principles are more important than almost anything and your country is more important than your party.

Please see also Replies 34 and 42.

Funny thing is, when you do do the right thing because it is the right thing, it often does redound to your benefit. That's not the reason you do it, but it often happens that way. Not always, but often.

[dotymed]

70. I KNOW THIS WILL BE UNPOPULAR

First I know that Bush should have been impeached ( for many
of the reasons you gave), also I know that Bush should now
face war crime charges. What really bothers me, as a person
who campaigned and voted for Obama (after Kucinich was out of
the race), is that many of these same charges can be leveled
against President Obama. We (he) still have troops killing
innocents in Iraq and now we are stepping up our invasion of
Afghanistan. Killing mostly civilians. These are two of the
poorest nations on earth. We have to stop. Morality (at least)
demands it.
If the media (MSM and FREE stations) would investigate and
publicize the Sibel Edmond's testimony, I think we will
discover that 9-11 was a "false-flag" operation. At
least we will know that Obama was employed by our CIA and not
Afghanistan.

[dgibby]

83. Obama employed by CIA?

I'm thinking you mean Osama, right?

[Amos Moses]

94. That is utter nonsense. Everybody knows Obama works for

Goldman Sachs.

[dotymed]

103. I AM SO SORRY AND EMBARRASSED

I meant to say that Osama Bin Laden was employed by our CIA
until, at least ,9-11-01.

[24601]

108. A false-flag operation? Then given planning time, it goes back

to the Clinton years - unless you figured out that the Bushco folks had a secret time machine - but please understand that the time machine's technical info is in a CIA special access program - so I can't discuss it.

[Usrename]

133. Some of the same criminals were convicted in Iran/Contra.

These same conspirators have been around for just about my entire life.

Otto Reich is STILL putting a hurt on Central America, even NOW under Obama's administration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6164954

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x167697

Oliver North and John Poindexter were indicted on multiple charges on March 16, 1988.<54> North, indicted on 16 counts, was found guilty by a jury of three minor counts. The convictions were vacated on appeal on the grounds that North's Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by the indirect use of his testimony to Congress which had been given under a grant of immunity. In 1990, Poindexter was convicted on several felony counts of conspiracy, lying to Congress, obstruction of justice, and altering and destroying documents pertinent to the investigation. His convictions were also overturned on appeal on similar grounds. Arthur L. Liman served as chief counsel for the Senate during the Iran-Contra Affair.<55>

The Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, chose not to re-try North or Poindexter. Caspar Weinberger was indicted for lying to the Independent Counsel but was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.<56>

In 1992 George H. W. Bush pardoned six convicted administration officials, namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert McFarlane, and Caspar Weinberger.<57>

George W. Bush selected some individuals that served under Reagan for high-level posts in his presidential administration.<58><59> They include:

Elliott Abrams:<60> under Bush, the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran-Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.

Otto Reich:<61> head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.

John Negroponte:<62> under Bush, served as the Ambassador to Iraq, the National Intelligence Director, and the Deputy Secretary of State.

Admiral John Poindexter:<63> under Bush, Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran-Contra, found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Convictions.2C_pardons.2C_and_reinstatements

[24601]

146. And where is the link to Planning a False Flag Operation which would

have began in the 1997-98 time frame? And which government officials in that time frame are you proposing ran it? You aren't going to claim is was going to be a diversion from Lewinsky are you? The idea that Bill Clinton's administration, or any administration, did this ranks up there with any so-called historian/theorist that believes FDR was in on Pearl Harbor.

[Usrename]

147. OBL was recruited in the '80s. That is just a fact. It isn't my fault that it's true.

It all goes back more than just 3 or 4 years. Do you have cognitive issues? What kind of link do you want? Confessions from the perpetrators? They've pretty much all been rounded up and murdered and tortured into madness.

There has been a huge coverup of all the events both leading up the event and about the event itself. That is all that I am claiming here, and it's obvious. And the perpetrators of the coverup are mostly all well-known individuals, I believe. And many of them have been convicted for this stuff before.

What is it that I am saying that you have a problem with? What specific claim am I making that you don't think is accurate?

[24601]

148. But it's your fault that you accuse 9-11 being a false flag

operation.

Please name names of conspirators and provide credible proof of your allegation. No, neither the psychic hot line not the psychotic hotline are credible sources.

Then explain how a government that can't keep a secret could keep a conspiracy of this magnitude secret. Where is the insider that claims he/she was the US Government planner of the attacks and is writing a tell-all book.

And explain how it was handed off from administration to administration (headed by different parties)and how everyone thought attacking the US on 9-11 was such a good idea.

Cognitive issues? Without reservation, anyone who believes that 9-11 was an inside job in any way, shape or form has major cognitive deficits. Anyone who really knows better but continues to claim it was an insider conspiracy is in competition to be the leading asshole in the state.

And no, you don't win on a technicality just because the four planes involved each had a US flag painted on the tail. That's not what a false flag operation means.

[Usrename]

149. Let's try and stay focused on the arguments.

You ask a legitimate question here:

"And explain how it was handed off from administration to administration (headed by different parties)and how everyone thought attacking the US on 9-11 was such a good idea."


Have you ever heard of an organization called PNAC? Here is a sampling of what they PUBLISHED during the Clinton years:

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.

<snip>

...Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor...

<snip>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2057792

This is what they were saying publicly about their belief system. These are the people who think it was a good idea. I am not assigning any culpability here, I am just answering the specific question you asked about how everyone thought it was such a good idea. The idiots did think it was a good idea, a shortcut to their ultimate goals. They say as much.

Let's look back to Iran/Contra for a second. Those same conspirators, the ones who were keeping secrets back then, some whom were even convicted and later pardoned, were given positions of authority in the Bush/Cheney regime. Some of them are still at work today, even now, under the Obama administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Convictions.2C_pardons.2C_and_reinstatements


Let's try and stay focused here on the simple stuff. You seem to be arguing that OBL waited until Bush became president and then at that point he decided to sit in a cave somewhere and plot and implement the whole conspiracy on his own. He, and the 19 hijackers were the only ones involved and there is no evidence at all that can be used to prosecute anyone else as regards to 9/11. Remember, no one has ever been prosecuted, and you think that is because no one else was ever involved.

Try and stay focused enough to come up with a story which explains 9/11 and does not contradict itself. Right or wrong, a person's opinion about 9/11 should at least be consistent with itself.

Anything less is what the prophet George Orwell referred to as doublethink.

[24601]

150. I don't hold that it was OBL and 19 hijackers. I do hold that Al Qaeda and its

organization was able to pull it off because prior to 9-11, this nation paid insufficient attention to Al Qaeda. It was not because there was a secret false flag operation pretending to be Al Qaeda, or supporting Al Qaeda in pursuit of other goals.

The question remains - Who do you think conducted this false flag operation? Where is the evidence? Ascribing it, even obliquely to a US DoD element is outrageous is every aspect. From a practical aspect, it fails to take into account the most important element - money. The future war deep thinkers and weapons acquisition communities remain committed to equipping DoD for huge programs designed and optimized for Great Power War, e.g. China as a rising threat. These are 3rd Generation Warfare (3GW)marked by net-centric precision targeting.

Fighting terrorists, however, is in direct conflict with these types because GWOT (outdated term)is inherently 4GW, or 4th Generation Warfare. And every dollar spent on the 4GW we have today is a dollar NOT available for the 3GW Great Power War (GPW) weapons (like the F-22). It's these 3GW systems that the DoD industrial base relies on for it's mega-bucks. 4GW doesn't come even close, by several orders of magnitude, to the pork dollars spread around to all the Congressional districts for 3GW/GPW systems.

Richard Clark testified to the 9-11 Commission that in the late 1990s (before he was shifted from CT to Cybersecurity), another National Security Council staffer asked why he was so obsessed with Al Qaeda when, during the 1990s, they had killed only 35 Americans. The attacks on 9-11 represent a full and sufficient answer to the staffer's question.

So what is the challenge? Yeah, it would be great to capture/kill those responsible. The greater imperative today, however, is to identify and stop those that, if left to their own devices, will plan and execute the 9-11s of tomorrow.

[Usrename]

151. I can tell you what my problem is, and why I cannot agree.

It is impossible for me to comprehend your scenario in any light that is not self-contradictory. You think Al Qaeda did it, and somehow they got away with it.

Of course if this were actually true, then it would PROVE the existence of a huge impenetrable conspiracy. Except that you argue that a false-flag operation could never exist because huge impenetrable conspiracies are impossible.

It's like intellectual ping-pong you are playing with yourself. But let’s try and move on and take a look at all the actual evidence rather than anyone’s spin or anyone’s propaganda.

What is the evidence that Al Qaeda did it and that they acted alone? For the most part the evidence consist of the 9/11 Commission Report, and not much more than that, as far as any “official” evidence that Al Qaeda alone was responsible.

When you boil it all down, what is the 9/11 Commission Report? What is it based on, factually? It looks an awful lot like it is based almost entirely on statements obtained through torture, with very little corroborating evidence. Why is this fact so important?

You have to look at what torture is, and why it is used. I am not aware of any instance, in the complete history of mankind, where a torture regime was implemented in order to respond to a ticking time-bomb scenario. There are many examples (Stalin, Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition) where the ticking time-bomb scenario was used as a proxy, as an excuse, to cover up the real reasons for implementing a torture regime. But in reality, the fact is, every single historical example of the existence of torture as a doctrine has been for a completely different purpose. That’s just the way history is. During the Inquisition, thousands swore they actually saw Satan walking around. Do you believe them too? During Stalin and Hitler, torture was used to create all sorts of propaganda that wasn’t true at all. Do you also believe their propaganda?

This is just a fact of history, and it has nothing at all to do with me or my opinion. As a matter of fact, I haven’t made any claim at all about a false-flag operation. You jumped to that conclusion on your own, presumably based on the facts that I am putting forward.

To me, a false-flag attack would, by definition, be an attack that was planned and carried out by our own government. I don’t necessarily believe that is what happened at all. Government actors were actively involved in covering up the conspiracy, that is all that I have any actual proof of, and that is all that I am claiming. The phone company could have been the ones behind the conspiracy for all I know. I’m just positively convinced that it was not Al Qaeda acting alone. That scenario is lie, and it is a provable lie, unless you want to believe that for the first time ever in recorded history the Bush/Cheney administration actually came up with a torture regime that was fundamentally different than every other torture regime that has ever existed. I don’t think they are that clever.

[24601]

152. The words were yours and what followed was a reasonable inference

Your original post said, "I think we will discover that 9-11 was a "false-flag" operation."

Logic says that to discover it, it must be there to discover. Couple that with your last post that, "To me, a false-flag attack would, by definition, be an attack that was planned and carried out by our own government." and the only conclusion is that you believed that the US government was involved in carrying out 9-11.

However, you followed that with, "I don’t necessarily believe that is what happened at all." So you then you are all over the place with contradictory posts.

I also believe that nobody from the US government was involved in 9-11 and that there is no proof to the contrary. As we apparently both recognize that there is no proof for USG involvement in the 9-11 attacks, I'll leave it at that.

If you want to re-open it and argue that they were, just post the proof, not theoretical speculation.

[Usrename]

153. And I think there is a case of mistaken identity.

I am not the person that you were responding to who said "I think we will discover that 9-11 was a "false-flag" operation." I just saw your challenge there and I thought I would make a very specific response to that challenge.

:toast:

[No Elephants]

43. Yes, but Obama is not prosecuting. Please also see posts 35 and 43.

[omega minimo]

110. Oh please don't repeat the strategerist soothsaying here, now as if it is hindsight

They should have been impeached, while in office, this soft pedaled, weak willed, enabling BULLSHIT is why they STILL have not been held accountable; why the public DIDN'T get the civics/history lesson they needed; and why YOU and other strategerist enablers can take credit for the NEXT heinous criminal administration that will not be impeached, not held accountable and not stopped when red handed.

:thumbsdown:

[frylock]

6. knr

:bounce:

[Grinchie]

9. Just another reason to not vote for Obama again.

Not that it matters anymore.

[dotymed]

73. YUCK. HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT "PEOPLE" LIKE BUSH?

I think that if we decide not to re-elect Obama, we have to
start NOW, fielding a strong progressive candidate. Bernie
Sanders and Dennis Kucinich come to mind. We also need
(desperately) to change our election laws and allow public
financing only. We can not financially compete with the the 2
current major parties. Also, public financing of elections is
the only way to assure that the people are heard from, not
brainwashed by some campaign commercials that lie and are
created by psychologists to get the people to vote against
their needs.

[JDPriestly]

79. We need to start supporting more liberal candidates period.

[Solly Mack]

10. "If they follow the law they have no choice,"

K&R

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. If he decided not to? I thought it was already decided??

[babsbunny]

12. Okay, I think I could vote for this guy

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[madmax]

13. Good grief

Really piling the shit on the Obama man. How quickly the midas touch turned to shit.

He's such a fucking failure he should resign immediately. He's the worst President ever. :sarcasm:

[deep1]

23. LOL, exactly Madmax..........

with all these whiny "progressives" who needs enemies like Republicans?

They expect some fucking Zeus magic after seven months.

SEVEN MONTHS?

Never mind he has followed through on his promises.

These folks..........

[pjt7]

36. Obama haspretty much covered for the biggest criminal political

enterprise in the History of the US. He deserves being shit on for this. I'll give him a slight pass for getting used to the job, but the time is right to put the criminals away.

[omega minimo]

116. Blaming "Obama" as if it's all up to him is insane. And dishonest.

"Obama haspretty much covered for the biggest criminal political enterprise in the History of the US"

[dotymed]

75. deep1, I wish he had followed through with his promises

Honestly, I do. Unfortunately, transparency has not happened,
we still have  2 wars of imperialism going on, Bush has not
been investigated for War Crimes, he has completely abandoned
the Single Payer option(without a fight), we still have
illegal wiretapping, etc.... President Obama is a Saint
compared to Bush, but (I know it has only been 7 months) he
has disavowed many of the principles that he supported before
the election. I prey that things change...

[omega minimo]

115. WHY are YOU trying to SHIFT the discussion to Obama "crimes" AWAY from BUSHCO??

:evilfrown:

[deep1]

134. The Afghan war..........

is a necessary war to stop the Taliban and the terrorists who planned 9/11. I think people are so impatient it's not even funny. He's a man, he is no God.

[omega minimo]

114. you fool no one

[Amos Moses]

26. +1

minus the :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

29. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JAbuchan08]

33. Talk about hyperbole and strawman arguments

Nobody is saying he is the worst president ever, but it sure shouldn't be a high bar to hold the ACTUAL worst president ever to account.

[clixtox]

56. You "nailed" the situation succinctly.

How much did the American electorate punish the Rethugs in 2000 for the completely bogus impeachment attempt against Clinton?

Any argument that the Democrats kept impeachment "off the table" to avoid alienating voters in 2008 is pure propaganda.

Of course there are differences between the Democratic Party and the between the Republican Party.

Otherwise they couldn't fool anybody!

[omega minimo]

118. Hello

"Any argument that the Democrats kept impeachment "off the table" to avoid alienating voters in 2008 is pure propaganda."

Why do you think they did it?

[omega minimo]

117. Ah. Truth. So simple. So refreshing.

:hi:

[polichick]

119. +1

[defendandprotect]

14. Wonderful, Jerry Nadler--!!!

:) :) :)

[EFerrari]

15. He's right. n/t

[polichick]

16. Yes - I don't know how the administration thinks it can just "look forward." nt

[earcandle]

17. I would like to know that my government is legitimate.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. "He who does not punish evil commands it to be done"

Leonardo DaVinci.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

24. and we all suffer in shameful complicity,

as we are the true force behind making wrongs right...

[No Elephants]

45. What do you suggest I do to purge myself of

of my "complicitness?"

I've cut out donations to the DNC, telling them why, and now donate {politically} only to Amnesty Insternational, ACLU, Human Rights Campaign and PBS (so it keeps producing things like Bill Moyers Journal). I've taken myself off all kinds of email lists, explaining why.

Do you have any specific suggestions for what else I can do?

I am as willing as anyone to beat my breast and say mea culpa, but it's not really all that productive. I prefer action. So, what do you suggest?

[omega minimo]

143. Not I

[No Elephants]

59. Bingo, Leo! That's why the UN Convention Against Torture, Etc. requires

investigation and prosecution. (Reply 53). Not for vindicativeness, but for prevention of future torture.

Obama's decision not to prosecute has put the Rule of Law in America in jeopardy. If people know there will be no consequences to breaking the law, they become lawless. If they know that only those who are powerless or poor get punished, respect for the law ends and people commit crimes, often with bitterness and vengeance against an unjust society.

This is why, IMO, even if the chess theory is correct, it's a bad move, the chess theory being that Obama is really pining to prosecute, but he wants to make it look as though the people or others in government forced him to do so. Imagine a mass murder and a Governor acted that way about prosecuting. "Gee, I really don't want to prosecute this mass murderer, but the people forced me to." Who would respect or re-elect that Governor (or the rule of law during his tenure)?

But, I don't even think it's a chess move. I don't think he wants to prosecute, period. We'll see.

[nc4bo]

19. Highly Rec'd. nt

[Alcibiades]

21. Isn't he a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee?

He already has the power to conduct such an investigation. Don't demand of others what you don't yourself have the guts to do.

[Harry Pierce]

41. That's right, you are correct .

[deep1]

22. I'm sure.........

Mr. Obama, being a constitutional law professor and LAWYER should know all about the laws. These fringe ultra-left wingers are starting to get on my nerves.

[No Elephants]

52. Bybee and Yoo knew about the laws, too. So can you.

Here's all the law you need to know to know Nadler is correct. Sometimes law is complex. As to investigating and prosecuting torture, though, it's not rocket science. (And Nadler is a lawyer, but not one of the "fringe ultra-left wingers.)




1/ The Constitution of the United States makes the Constitution itself, laws enacted by Congress and treaties to which the U.S. is a party the "supreme law" of this country. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause (That is the only Constitutional law anyone needed to know for this purpose.)



2/ The US is one of the countries, or States, that is a Party to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm



3/ The UN Convention against torture, etc. requires requires States that are Parties to it, such as the US, to make torture, etc. a crime. From the treaty

Part I, Article 4
" 1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences
under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture
and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in
torture.

2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate
penalties which take into account their grave nature."





4/The Convention also requires each State Party, such as the US, to investigate promptly those who engage in torture, etc. From the treaty.

Part I Article 12
"Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a
prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to
believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its
jurisdiction."




5/ The Convention also requires each State Party, such as the US, to prosecute the crime of torture, etc. From the treaty:



Part I Article 7
" 1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person
alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall
in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit
the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in
the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that
State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of
evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less
stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5,
paragraph 1."





The entire treaty is well worth reading. It is in fairy plain English, not too much "legalese" at all. Again, the link is http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm

The wiki on torture in the US speaks to laws about torture enacted by Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States

[chervilant]

128. tyvm

Excellent post, No.

The corporatists who now own the majority of our media andour politicians are laughing their fat asses off as We The People remain mired in our bipartisan bickering.

[Enthusiast]

54. It is "fringe" to expect

we follow the rule of law? Funny how this only applies to those on the left side of the political spectrum while on the right you can investigate any rumor or crazy allegation of anything.

[TankLV]

67. Take your RIGHT WING REPUKE TALKING POINTS back to your repuke friends...!!!

"fringe ultra-left wingers"?!!!

sorry - but THE LAW IS THE LAW...

we know WHO and WHAT you are, and your REPUKE spew is fooling NOBODY...

[chatnoir]

101. Thank you

for someone finally saying what I've been thinking.

[dotymed]

76. LIKE PEOPLE WHO PUT PARTY BEFORE WHAT IS RIGHT

get on my nerves.

[windoe]

25. Obama being pressured into an investigation

looks very different than him jumping right on it after getting into office. He would not look vindictive, but as one following the will of his constituency.

[Kaleko]

31. Exactly. Obama can't risk even the appearance of petty vindictiveness.

He needs to be the consummate statesman: selfless civil servant bowing to the Justice Department's demand for lawful conduct. This is political role-playing 101.

[Wizard777]

49. Send them to the ICJ and let the international community prosecute him.

[No Elephants]

55. Please see Reply ##s 54 and 53.

[grasswire]

137. that's what they told Al Gore

Must be statesmanlike! Don't be a sore loserman!


Pffffffffffffft.

[No Elephants]

53. When did obeying the law become a sign of vindictiveness in America? Pls. see Reply 53.

The law requires prompt investigation.

[orleans]

27. k&r n/t

[LynnTheDem]

28. Absolutely.

But the law hasn't meant dick for years now.

Or not when it's the law against the wealthy.

[flyarm]

30. shhhhhhhhh..the powder is drying and the table is empty! eom

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[pjt7]

35. Obama has failed us, so far.

The minute his Department of Justice goes after the Bush Admin. is the minute I regain my repsect for the man.

[farmboxer]

37. Obama only care about pleasing Republicans

His "only" reason for being President is to please his masters the Republican pieces of fecal matter. I am somewhat sorry that I voted for him. He does not care about those of use who supported him, only Republican bastards. I will vote for Nader next time. Let's see how many Republicans support him in the next election. I will have to commit suicide when I get sick, so I have nothing to lose.

[steven johnson]

38. Obama's political capital was too thin

Obama, IMO, had to either look forward to his agenda or look back at the Bush screwups -- he couldn't do both.

Obama got little more than 50% of the vote and a lot of people who voted for him still thought Bush was an OK guy. Burning bridges is a risky tactic.

[saigon68]

48. We will see Steven

The Pukes are already blaming "The Present Occupant" for the recession. The sheep are lapping it up like the Morans they are.

[No Elephants]

57. His approval ratings were 60% or over, only a short time ago. They have gone down

because the honeymoon is over, but also,IMO, because he has not given the impression of leading. If he had gotten on them in the right way and right away, people would admire him more. And, by the time re-election rolled around, they would know they had a competent leader. And the fact that they may not have liked this, that or the other specific thing would be forgotten.

Besides, following the law in the face of all the evidence we have out there does not require political capital. Please see Reply 53.

And even if it did, so what? These are matters of law and conscience and principle. Please see Replies 35, 43.

When Obama took office, overwhelming percentages of the country wanted health care reform and a public option, and a healthy majority wanted Bushco investigated too. Doing what healthy majorities of the country want does not require using up your capital, if you go about it the right way. If you appear unwilling to do the right thing and/or appear ineffective, you lose a lot of points. IMO, that is what has happened. It is not pursuing health care that cost him capital. it is not doing it the right way.

[flyarm]

88. ohhhhhh..butttttt we are not waiting long enough!!!!!!!! too soon..there must be a grand chess game

SOOOOMEWHERE..that he is waiting for........

but it does seem like he has the time to want to send a bunch of troops to Columbia!!!!!!!

And keep spying on us !!!!!

And having secret meetings with Big Pharma and hospitals and Health Insurance folks!!!!!!!!!

But he hasn't had time to reinstate Habeas Corpus..nope , that takes too much time..

I just wonder how this country survived through the Nuremberg trials???????

C-SPAN as he promised to negotiate our national health care......no siree..he has been too busy with NASCAR!

[wordpix]

126. Pls. give Obama the benefit of the doubt b/c BushCo left him with two wars & a wrecked economy

He is not superman so let's give him a break. Maybe he needs a little consultation time with the Great Ocean at M. Vineyard to help him get things in perspective and focus on his place in history. :shrug:

[Le Taz Hot]

71. Yes it is, as

he will find out in 2012 when he once again calls on the progressives for their time, money and votes. Yes, burning bridges is indeed a risky tactic.

[dotymed]

77. DOING THE RIGHT THING IS RISKY TOO

But, if you are a principled person. you have no choice.
Remarkably, the electorate usually appreciate this and show it
at election time.

[No Elephants]

80. +1

[John Q. Citizen]

84. I disagree with your low expectations of Obama. I think he can walk and chew gum at the same time.

If the rule of law is subjugated to the political expedient, then it's good bye rule of law.

And you and everyone else who did nothing about it except make excuses for it will be to blame.

Do you want the history books to say, "Back in 2009, steven johnson was so worried about the next election that he abdicated his responsibilities as a citizen and looked the other way while law breakers laughed in the face of our constituion?"

I wouldn't want to be my legacy.

I call on the executive branch to do their duty to the law and the constitution and to uphold the law and to investigate the allegations and to file charges should the investigations prove crimes were committed.

That's why we hired Obama. We didn't hire him so we could guarantee him a contract renewal in 4 years. ANd if you think Obama will win if progressives decide he looked away and refused to perform his legal duties, you are mistaken.

[TommyPaine]

39. Oh, that Ralph Nader, will he ever...wait, Nadler?

"If you start prosecuting the Bush people," Nadler said, "you know what is going to be said? What's going to be said is, this is politically motivated payback for the Clinton impeachment. That is what they are going to say."

Though placing this on the level of the Clinton impeachment wouldn't seem right. Had Bill issued orders for Monica Lewinsky to be unlawfully detained for years and subjected to all manner of cruel acts, perhaps.

[Vidar]

40. Good for Nadler.

[Senator]

46. Too Much Drama For Obama.

Though the UN http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">could always raise the curtain at any time. As could any signatory nation. Particularly if enough inconvenient truth http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/22/AR2009082200045_pf.html">gets past the redaction pen on Monday.

There could be a detour ahead at any time for the Driver of the Torture Getaway Car.

But his only chance to secure greatness -- by simply abiding by and enforcing the laws and treaty obligations our greater generations fought and died to forge -- has long passed.

---

[blueknight]

51. so far

obama and pelosi have showed no guts at all, so i dont expect nothing different now. HUGE dissapointment in my eyes

[No Elephants]

58. Spain asked a while ago if Obama intended to investigate and prosecute, as required by law.

I don't know what happened with the inquiry after that.

I doubt the UN or any country is going to act against his wishes. And there are more urgent fish for them to fry. Darfur, for one.

[Senator]

104. The Spanish judge is still proceeding.

Even though it was reported that Obama tried to get it stopped. And Scott Horton reports that inquiries are underway in Italy, Germany, and the UK as well. He is also predicting action in Lithuania, now that it's been reported that http://harpers.org/archive/2009/08/hbc-90005570">the last torture factory was in Vilnius. And while the UN doesn't do criminal investigation, they can render "embarrassing" opinion/condemnation votes.

The real problem of course is the cost of non-cooperation. The myth of US intel omnipotence is just that. The reality is that Clinton "kept us safe" with the benefit of our being admired, and thus helped, by other nations. While the neofascist "with us or against us" approach -- and eagerness to torture -- left us more isolated.

Obama's place on that continuum is unknowable. But refusing to prosecute (harboring) torturers and floating notions of paranoid detention is not the way to http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/New/Europe-0005/factsheets/president-clinton-receives-charlemagne-prize.html">win the Charlemagne Medal.

--

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L. Coyote]

60. "politically motivated payback for the Clinton impeachment" is a damn good idea.

The pukes impeached Clinton for political reasons.
They set the standard. To not prosecute crimes
for political reasons would violate this tradition.
We must respect tradition :rofl:

[Hubert Flottz]

62. K&R

Powerful Rich republicans should not be above the law in a "nation Of Laws".

[Honeycombe8]

64. We need to focus on health care right now. Things like this will have to wait...

unless Holder wants to handle it personally himself.

I don't want Obama or Congress to be distracted from health care reform.

[TankLV]

69. yeah - and THAT's going "so well" for him now too, isn't it!

he's FAILING at health care, he's FAILED at JUSTICE - it's a TWO FER!!!

[Chemisse]

93. Go spew your repuke talking points elsewhere

We are SO sick and tired of bush* apologists joining up to post their shit here..

Confused? See post #66. I would suggest your comments are more worthy of this response than mine.

[flyarm]

96. pssssssss..you are accussing a long time DU member of good standing ..of being a bush apologist..

seems you have alot of cajones since it is *you* that is newer here!!

[Chemisse]

97. There is a reason why I wrote that - those are the words he said to me

Up in this thread, for absolutely no reason.

I felt inspired to point out that what he JUST wrote is a lot more repuke sounding than anything I have ever written.

[Le Taz Hot]

72. I'm pretty sure

most of them can multi-task. :shrug:

[Honeycombe8]

82. They're already multi-tasking to the Nth degree. This is a distraction technique...

from the REAL issue going on right now: health care reform.

This other issue, as well as other issues, will still be there in two or three months. There's no urgency. But there IS urgency to the health care reform plan.

The Republicans would like nothing better than for the Dems' attention to be distracted to terror issues, or torture issues, or the Ridge book, or anything other than health care.

Let's keep our eye on this month's ball and next month's goal. If we don't, the Republicans will win back Congress, and there will be little ability to do anything about anything.

[No Elephants]

95. Actually, there is urgency. Statutes of limitation. Some have already expired. To

investigate and prosecute before all of them expire will be rough as it is. It isn't as though Obama or Axelrod or Rahm or anyone working on health care would be investigating personally anyway.

on the other hand, if Obama will stay true to his word and not prosecute, investigating is a waste of time. Not prosecuting violates the law. So does not investigating, but, oh, well.

[Honeycombe8]

141. This is it. The one, the only chance to pass health care reform.

There will be other months to deal with DADT, torture issues, prior administration illegal activities, the Patriot Act scam, etc.

But for health care, this is it. There won't be another chance in October, or next year, or the next year. This is it. August and September. Then it's over.

We've been trying to address health care problems for decades, now. Real opportunity to do that is rare, and so far, efforts have been unsuccessful. This is something that affects every American in his daily life. It also is necessary to get done, for the Dems to stay in power.

Everything else, except the economy, must, and can, wait until October. For health care, there will be no other opportunity. This is it.

[flyarm]

90. I WANT OUR LAWS FOLLOWED.. there is no excuse big enough to ignore our laws!

there are no excuses big enough to ignore our treaties and our constitution!

Fuck everything else!..without our laws we are a banana republic!

There is NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT!

[24601]

129. Nothing? Nothing at all? Stopping the total destruction of the

earth and annihilation of the human race is less important? Thanks for the clarification. Who would have thought it - I'll call Al and have him stand down immediately.

[Chemisse]

98. We really need to investigate/prosecute right now

It doesn't take much effort. Point a few people in the right direction then wait for the results. The president and legislators don't have to do it themselves!

[thread-bear]

65. k&r

There's no way we can have a free country if those that govern us are able to ignore the laws that are there to protect us(the governed)from them. They need to fear the rule of law more than the anger of the rich and powerful.

[shadowknows69]

68. I'm inclined to agree. This main point is why I'm rapidly losing all hope for this country.

[MissDeeds]

78. K & R

:kick:

[Uncle Joe]

85. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[levinrules]

87. Not really

just saying

[No Elephants]

92. Refute Reply 53 then.

[defendandprotect]

89. k i c k

[GreenTea]

99. Prof. Jonathan Turley, John Dean & many other legal experts have also stated Obama is Violating

The Law By Not Investigating Bush.....

President Obama should simply request the Attorney General to investigate the obvious Bush crimes....It would then be out of Obama's hands to free him for the county's many other concerns, like a public option health care for all, once the AG takes control.

The Bush thugs Must & need to be prosecuted - They knowingly and arrogantly broke the law and are getting away with it because it's not being investigated by Obama (which is also illegal)....It's simply a matter of principle and fairness to all.

The American people as well as the law itself demands justice by prosecuting all the Bush lies and crimes.

[No Elephants]

140. Congress should pass a law appointing someone independent to do an

investigation of war crimes, violations of the Constitution, etc. by the entire administration.

[joeycola]

100. Good for Nadar. Now for the WH is get some spine.

[mullard12ax7]

105. Look at all the posters saying law doesn't matter, LOL

Saluting the leader is all that matters to them, no different that the very torturers themselves.

[JohnWxy]

106. BUSH'S DEFENSE: "I NEVER WAS PRESIDENT, NOT LEGALLY, SO .NOT GUILTY OF ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER!"

"NEVER WAS PRESIDENT (REALLY. NOT ELECTED. (smirk)) HEH, HEH. SO CAN'T HOLD ME TO RESPONSIBILITIES TO NOT ABUSE PRESIDENTIAL POWERS... AS THE PRESIDENT! GET IT? ..NEVER WAS THE PRESIDENT, HEH, HEH,,,,HEH."

[24601]

107. So, is Jerry violating his Constitutional oath by not introducing

an article of impeachment against the President for this violation of the law?

[Kaleko]

109. Good point.

I'd like to hear legal experts expound on that.

[Xenotime]

122. Prosecute * for his crimes against humanity.

[wordpix]

127. i agree we can't let BushCo get away with destroying US with wars, torture, & criminal cronyism

They need to be held accountable. End of story.

[deep1]

135. I am so proud of Obama.....

and being a person of color, he is my inspiration. I will not tolerate anyone trying to bring him down---whether from the nutty right or the impatient left. He is a great role model for black people, black men in this country. Too often young black people are told "they can't make it", "they ain't gonna amount to shit", etc. Now here comes Obama. For him to become the president of the United States, the highest power in the world, is just nothing short of amazing. I refuse to tolerate the bullshit thrown at him! He worked his ass off one hundred times more than any white man to get to that office!

[EFerrari]

139. Obama is not above the law. Under the Geneva torture convention

it's a crime to fail to investigate torture.

[IrishBuckeye]

144. How dare anyone question the Black Obama!

After all he's worked harder than any white man every has! How dare anyone question the black Obama as he can do no wrong! And if anyone dares to question the black Obama it must be due to his blackness and not his policies!