Anyone listening to Sheldon Whitehouse on Msnbc? Obama is shedding a light on what was done.

[jillan]

He is showing the attorneys what occurred during the last administration.


Obama has set the stage for all of those that are looking into whether or not the last administration crossed the line.


BINGO!

[wryter2000]

1. I wish I could watch

I sure hope something will get done. Releasing the memos was a good start. I just hope it isn't a dead end, as well.

[jillan]

3. It was just a short interview, but Whitehouse was saying that Obama did the right thing, now it's up

to the attorneys and the groups that are investigating this to look into what was done.

Whitehouse used to be an attorney - he's a really smart, articulate Senator.

[pnwmom]

5. I would think this would be a boost to anyone considering a CIVIL suit. n/t

[wryter2000]

31. That's great with me

Obama doesn't have to do every single thing. I'd be happy to leave it to Congress and Justice, if only they'll do it. <fingers crossed>

[HowHasItComeToThis]

2. HOPE IT IS A BINGO

[bigjohn16]

4. I'd like to think that's the case but he took

a large group of defendants/witnesses out of any possible investigation by giving blanket immunity to the torturers at the CIA.

[pnwmom]

7. He's relieved them of criminal charges, but a civil suit is still possible. n/t

[bigjohn16]

11. Yes but it really hurt the criminal case

against Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales by taking away the incentive for people at the CIA to testify.

[DevonRex]

16. It's exactly the opposite. See my post below.

[bigjohn16]

20. I read it and don't really see what you're saying. sorry

If you're saying that we just having to focus on the higher ups I think that is totally wrong. We have to go after both the higher ups and the torturers at the CIA. If I totally missed your point again sorry.

[pnwmom]

28. I think s/he's saying that some of the low level people, now freed from the worry

of being charged merely for following orders, might now be more inclined to give evidence against the higher-ups.

[bigjohn16]

29. Fear of prosecution is how you get people to testify. nt

[pnwmom]

30. There's another group of people who might feel freed up this way. nt

[stevenleser]

35. They dont have any fear of prosecution as it is as you know from our back and forth.

The AG guidance is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to overcome.

[bigjohn16]

36. There is no proof that it's impossible.

If the individual agent knew what they were doing was wrong then they should have refused the order. Just as "I was just following orders" isn't a viable defense neither is "I didn't know that was against the law." I don't know for a fact that it could be overcome but I do know that it's for a Special Investigator to decide the merits of the cases.

[jillan]

8. I *think* Obama has bigger fish to fry.

Meaning that he wants the attorneys to look at who was giving the orders.

Just my guess, my hope.

[bigjohn16]

15. At the end of the day those little fish are still torturers. nt

[ThomCat]

37. If that was the case, he would have released this stuff willingly.

He is only releasing what he is forced to release because of the ACLU pushing freedom of information act requests through the courts.

Obama clearly doesn't have any fish to fry in this matter. He's only doing what he's forced to do. He's dragging his heals. The ACLU and other groups are doing all the work.

[DevonRex]

13. There's a reason for that, but not what most people think...

First, I assume that most evidence of wrongdoing has been destroyed. BUT if there is any left, it will be in the hands of a few of those operatives that Obama has said he will not prosecute. Those are the ones who did no torturing before the rulings were given by the Justice Department. And they certainly know who DID torture prior to that. Some at mid level might even know exactly who told the JD to craft those memos in exactly that way.

If there is any hope of direct evidence against the higher ups in the agency and in the Bush Admin, we must have some of the lower folks on our side.

[bigjohn16]

21. Giving someone immunity is not a good way to get them on your side.

Fear of prosecution is a great motivator for getting people to testify. Don't worry nothing will ever happen to you now tell me every dirty secret about your friends and bosses, not so much.

[jbnow]

26. Didn't give immunity exactly, did he?

I know the AG office office won't charge them (who else could is us?)and will defend them if there are charges or pay any fines incurred to those who carried this out believing it was not torture because of these directives.

But the lawyers who wrote them and those who directed the CIA to carry this out don't have even that protection.

[Sanity Claws]

38. This means they can be compelled to testify fully

Can't assert fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

[PearliePoo2]

6. I heard that!

Senator Whitehouse was VERY measured and careful when he spoke. He did not close the door on further investigation. In fact, you can tell he is outraged.
I don't think this is over by any means.
Pres. Obama is shining the light on these despicable rodents.
"Shoot'emInTheFace" is the HEAD RAT.

[jillan]

10. I love Whitehouse. He is a strong voice fighting for us.

And he is not afraid to stand up and say what needs to be said.

[rug]

9. Showing what attorneys?

Private attorneys for civil suits?

Government attorneys for prosecution?

It's tremendous he actually released the documents but who is supposed to do what with this information?

[jillan]

14. Special prosecutors? I don't know - Nora was interviewing him and was more concerned

with how to answer to repubs that are saying Obama has made us less safe by releasing these memos.

She didn't ask any follow up questions on what exactly he meant.

[Supersedeas]

25. Norah O'Donnell will always appease the Corp masters--just like the interrogators did

[biopowertoday]

12. Did he mention that the WH is providing lawyers for this folks? Because

that is what the WH is doing. Yup--your taxes going to defend these folks that the Obama WH has granted immunity.

[jillan]

18. Obama has given NO immunity to Cheney, Bybee and whoever else that was giving the orders

to torture.

[DevonRex]

19. And NO immunity for those who tortured prior to those legal opinions.

[biopowertoday]

33. I was not referring to them but to the Officers in the

CIA who the WH said they would not prosecute (and have provided lawyers to in case they need them).


my use of the word immunity was wrong. sorry.

[Political Heretic]

17. I hope so. He could stop saying now is not the time for retribution or for looking backward

That would be comforting.

[polichick]

23. Yes, especially since what we are looking for is JUSTICE.

[polichick]

22. The president has said that "a process" is underway, so...

Stay tuned - it'll probably get very interesting.

[YvonneCa]

24. I heard it. And the fact that Senator Whitehouse...

...seems to think Obama is going about this the right way is great (considering the speech he gave on the Senate floor a few weeks ago about how we must move forward...but we also have to look back and fix what was wrong).

KO gave a special comment last night AGAINST the move to not hold CIA accountable (while praising the release by Obama of the memos). And I just heard Barry McAfree (sp?) say those who pushed this policy had to be held accountable (not CIA, but higher up Bush officials). I found that disconcerting, as...I think...I remember the General supporting Bushco all the way from 2000-2007 or so. Has he changed his turn, or is he just 'going along to get along'? I don't trust him at all. I'll have to do some research on that one. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

27. Barry McCaffrie was quite supportive of Wes Clark in 2004.....

He served as Drug Czar under Bill Clinton from 1996 to 2001.

but I don't believe that he ever politically supported "BushCo".

[YvonneCa]

32. I hope you are right about him not supporting...

...Bush. I honestly don't remember. But I WAS quite impressed with his words today.

[Cha]

34. This is really to hear about..thanks

jillan!

[GeorgeGist]

39. Hope can be audacious ...

but that doesn't mean BINGO if you lose on purpose.