Meeting with my Congressman: Holding the Bush Administration Responsible for their Crimes

[Time for change]

Tomorrow I will be meeting with the staff of my Congressman, Chris Van Hollen, as part of a three-person delegation sponsored by Amnesty International, to request that Van Hollen support measures to investigate and hold the Bush administration responsible for their crimes. The first part of my prepared remarks is a general discussion of the need for more investigation into this issue. The second part is focused on the need to maintain the rule of law and hold high level criminals accountable for their crimes, lest anyone interpret the request for investigations as a substitute for prosecutions:

The need for investigations into Bush administration crimes

Our country has recently suffered through eight years of the most lawless presidential administration in our history. Most important, our president saw fit to declare that the Geneva Conventions no longer applied to his prisoners. That decision not only went far towards destroying the foundations of international law, but it also led to repeated violations of U.S. law and our Constitution.

From that decision, a long series of horrors was unleashed, including torture and the indefinite detention of thousands of men and boys, who were stripped of all their human rights, including their right to challenge their detention in a court of law. Though the Bush administration, with the assistance of our national news media, minimized the extent and severity of those policies, a glimpse of their horrors is provided to us by a 2005 research study, sponsored by the ACLU, which analyzed 44 autopsies of men who died in our detention facilities, and identified 21 of those 44 deaths as homicides.

So, why do we urge the creation of a commission to investigate the Bush administration crimes if we already know about these things?

First of all, too many Americans do not know about them. These crimes have been given way too little attention by our national news media over the past 8 years. The creation of a commission to investigate them would provide much needed attention to some of the worst crimes committed by the U.S. government in our history.

Secondly, it seems highly likely that a vigorous investigation of these things would turn up new revelations that could go a long way towards explaining how and why our country arrived at this sad state of affairs.

We as a nation need to understand how and why this all happened. We owe it to future generations to get to the bottom of this sordid story, so that we can take steps to ensure that it does not happen again.

The need to hold perpetrators accountable for their crimes and uphold the rule of law

Finally, it is essential to hold those responsible for these crimes accountable for their actions. If we fail to do that we essentially condone them. That would send a terrible signal to future government leaders and to the American people. Essentially, we would be signaling that such crimes are not very serious and that they may be committed with impunity – as long as the perpetrators are high enough up in the food chain. If we allow this to pass, we should not be surprised to see it happen again in the not distant future. For that reason, we want to make it absolutely clear that in recommending the creation of a commission of inquiry we do not see it as a substitute for prosecutions of the guilty, but rather as an accompaniment to them.

President Obama has spoken of the need to “look towards the future”. I agree with that. But we cannot look towards the future by ignoring the past and by condoning heinous crimes committed by the highest officials in our government. With that kind of attitude we may as well empty our prisons of all their murderers, on the rationalization that their crimes were committed in the past, and we need to look towards the future instead. Who would accept such a decision?

In a democracy our government officials are supposed to serve us, not the other way around. Why should we tolerate crimes of our government leaders that we wouldn’t tolerate of anyone else? The American people deserve to know what their leaders do in our name, and we deserve accountability from them.

Lastly, I’d like to end with a quote from Dawn Johnsen, President Obama’s choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department:

“We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.”

The need to emerge from the shadow of Bush administration crimes

The other two members of our delegation feel almost exactly the same way that I do about this.

In addition to expanding on some of my points, the delegation member who follows me (who has not yet given me permission to use her name) will emphasize the point that these investigations are further needed in order to address current national policies. Here are excerpts from her remarks:

An investigation is needed to make clear the violations of the past that are framing the understanding of what is legal and illegal, moral and immoral, justifiable and criminal today. It is needed to allow for even the hope of a new course of action concerning torture, domestic spying, and civil and human liberties from this democrat-majority congress and new executive leader. As a member of Amnesty International who has spent the last 8 years vigorously pursuing every line to end torture… I have received little reassurance from the Obama administration or the congressional body that these actions will not continue.

That is why I ask that Congressman Van Hollen support HR 104 (John Conyers’ resolution), as 29 of his colleagues have already done. Supporting HR 104 would represent the majority of Americans who according to a February Gallup poll favor nearly 2 to 1 a criminal investigation or independent panel on the use of torture. This investigation must… make recommendations for changes to the actions we take in the name of national security… We can have little hope of undoing those arguments and addressing the actions that followed if we refuse to investigate.

The American people can expect no protections of their constitutional rights and domestic and international law as long as laws which should never have been passed in the first place are upheld by our congressional representatives. This establishes a seemingly natural state under which formerly illegal actions continue, under the illegal protection of laws that violate our constitutional rights and international law.

An investigation is necessary to expose the widespread violations of international laws banning torture, extraordinary rendition, and arbitrary/indefinite detention that were violated during the past 8 years, and to what extent those violations are becoming the norm under this administration.

We must have a full accounting of the past in order to remedy the present move into the future with clean hands

Without an investigation, there is no reason to believe such actions ended with the changing of the sheets from George Bush’s to Barack Obama’s bed in the White House. President Bush said that the United States does not torture. President Obama has said that the United States will not torture. We know for a fact that one of them (Bush) lied. An investigation would provide better assurance of the truth of Obama’s statement than blind trust: Did the United States torture? Does it still? How will we prevent it in the future? Actions taken in the first 100 days of the Obama administration have led many to believe – and some victims to outright accuse – that things are getting worse, not better under our new leader. A nonpartisan investigation gives the American people the best understanding of the truth in these matters – and our leaders the best hope for new actions and understanding in the future.

Most troubling is the extent to which actions are being taken under the new administration – with seeming approval from a new, Democrat-led house and congress – to prevent any investigation (or prosecutions) of those who we know violated the law… We know that violations have occurred. We have detainees whose rights are continuingly being asserted in our judicial courts, but denied by our executive powers – and ignored by our legislative branch. That did not end on January 20th. Why should we believe that it will not continue? …

I do not accept the justification of state secrets for refusals to release the documentation of illegal actions. I do not accept the argument that looking ahead will amend the wrongs of the past that continue to frame the actions of today, and the hopes of tomorrow. Without an investigation, the American people remain in the dark, threatened by an executive branch with ever-expanding powers and a complicit legislative branch of representatives who violate daily their oaths to uphold the constitution and serve the American people… I do not believe that end has yet come. Actions must be taken to ensure the rule of law in these matters is upheld, or violations will continue.

Some of this could be taken as a criticism of the Obama administration – but it is really not meant to be personally directed at anyone. I have noted before that our presidents may have considerably less power than we ascribe to them. Adlai Stevenson, former two-time Democratic nominee for President, and Ambassador to the United Nations in the Kennedy administration, made that point, when he said privately that Kennedy would never be allowed to establish diplomatic dialogue with Castro (as he intended) because “Unfortunately, the CIA is still in charge of Cuba”.

So, if President Obama really wants to proceed with criminal prosecutions but feels unable to do so for whatever reasons, we would be greatly helping him out by putting pressure on him to do so.


Ensuring that we do not become a totalitarian state

Lastly, Paul Grenier (who has written some interesting things about the 9/11 investigations) will discuss how under the Bush administration we were moving towards being a totalitarian state, and why we may still move in that direction if we don’t address our past. He does that especially by comparing the legal system of the former Soviet Union to that under the Bush administration:

A commission is necessary to establish the truth. Prosecution is necessary to discourage the repetition of the same crimes in the future and for the sake of justice. Full transparency is necessary, among other reasons, to assure us that similar crimes are not still continuing today (under new names and guises), and also to establish the full truth. Action on all these fronts is urgent, moreover, if we would preserve our identity as a nation under the rule of law.

Incredibly, despite the unprecedented unconstitutionality of recent government behavior, such an agenda is far from being vigorously promoted in the White House or in the halls of Congress. Excuses are made that we should ‘look to the future.’ It is as if the practices of recent years were, in the end, no very big deal. But these practices – which have yet to be fully renounced – were and are a very big deal. They are the practices of a totalitarian state….

A comparison of the rule of law in the former Soviet Union with that of the Bush administration

A number of characteristic features of the Soviet system clearly marked it as a nation which flagrantly violated the most basic principles of the rule of law. For example, under the Soviet system, individuals could be detained and mistreated indefinitely on the mere say so of the nation’s chief executive. All that was needed was for the government to declare, without any evidence presented in a fair and open court proceeding, that someone was an ‘enemy of the people.’

Under the rule of law, by contrast, attaching a label to a person is insufficient grounds to deny said person access to the protection of the law.

Under the Bush administration, numerous individuals have been swept up, imprisoned indefinitely, tortured by the CIA directly or rendered to third countries for detention and torture, on the sole basis that the executive branch defined these persons as ‘unlawful enemy combatants’ or ‘terrorists.’ It is no secret that many of these persons later turned out to be innocent of any and all criminal action or even intent.

The use of sleep deprivation and waterboarding are typical practices of totalitarian regimes. It is well known that the virtue of these techniques, from the point of view of totalitarian states, is their effectiveness in extracting false confessions. For example, as was pointed out by Vladimir Bukovksy, the Soviet human rights defender and celebrated pro-democracy dissident, it was precisely sleep deprivation that was used by Stalin’s NKVD to produce false confessions during the famous ‘show trials’ of the 1930s.

The Bush administration made use of both water-boarding and prolonged sleep deprivation – up to eleven days – while interrogating detainees. These interrogations are known for a fact to have produced false, though often convenient, information – including information which was used to justify the US invasion of Iraq…

On the need for an independent commission of inquiry

I hope that it is apparent from the above remarks that we see an independent commission of inquiry as complementary to, not as a substitute for, criminal prosecutions of those suspected of crimes. But they are necessary nonetheless. Criminal prosecutions are focused narrowly on determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. They do not address broader issues of how to revise our system of law in order to prevent future violations of the kind that we endured under the Bush administration. Our problems are of such magnitude that punishing the guilty is not enough (alone) to get our country back on track. For example, during the Bush administration our Republican Congress (with help from a minority of Democrats) passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which expanded presidential powers to unconstitutional levels and tainted our nation with characteristics of totalitarianism.

In addition, we need to consider the very real possibility that the Obama administration at this time has no intention of moving forward with criminal prosecutions. If that is the case, then one potential means of persuading it to proceed with prosecutions would be to establish a high profile independent commission of inquiry that publicly reveals information that leaves the Obama administration little choice in the matter. Is there a chance that it would fail to do that? Sure. Maybe it’s even likely that it would fail to do that. But that’s no reason not to try.

If I had my choice between a commission of inquiry or criminal prosecutions, I would choose the latter. But that is not my choice to make. I have previously written Attorney General Holder, who has that responsibility, to urge him to undertake criminal prosecutions of Bush administration officials who may have committed serious crimes. I cannot lobby Congress to do that because it is not their responsibility. They don’t have the power to prosecute criminals. They can only undertake investigations or appoint others to investigate. In my letter to Holder I spoke of the Obama administration’s stance of “look forward as opposed to looking backward” as a reason to forego criminal prosecutions. I wrote:

What if we were to take that attitude towards common criminals – say murderers and rapists, for example? What if a prosecuting attorney was to say about the prosecution of a murderer/rapist, "Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened -- so let's forget about prosecuting and just focus on getting to the truth"? Does anybody seriously believe that such an approach would act as a deterrent to murder and rape? Any prosecuting attorney who suggested such a thing would be looking for a new job very soon.

So why should we take such a radically different approach to the crimes of the Bush administration? Why should anyone think that merely establishing the truth of what happened would act as a deterrent to further occurrences, if the establishment of that truth did not lead to prosecutions of the guilty parties?

We also intend to stress that that a commission of inquiry needs to be truly INDEPENDENT and staffed at the highest levels by internationally acknowledged, independent experts on humanitarian law and practice.

Wish us luck, and please feel free to use any ideas in this post in discussion or correspondence with your Congresspersons.

[indepat]

1. Godspeed in this noble endeavor: no one could possibly present a more compelling

case than I know you will present. ;)

[Time for change]

17. Thank you --

That's very nice of you to say.

[babylonsister]

2. Thank you, recommend, and you of all people will make

an impression. I will be anxious to hear the response, or whether they actually care about your concerns. :thumbsup:

[Time for change]

22. Thank you -- I will post to this thread to give some feedback when I return from tomorrow's meeting

And then I'll take Bjorn Against's advice and write up in some detail what transpired, and then post on that.

[Laelth]

3. That's beautiful.

By "prepared remarks" I am guessing that you intend to hand that argument to your Congressperson in writing. But perhaps I am wrong? I doubt he'll have time to listen to all of that.

Good luck.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Time for change]

9. Thank you -- We intend to do both

The three of us will both read our own remarks, and also pass them out in written form. Between the 3 of us, it should take about 10-12 minutes. The meeting is for half an hour, so that should leave us about 15 minutes for discussion following our prepared remarks.

We're meeting with Congressman Van Hollen's staff, not him ... Whoops, I see that my title is somewhat misleading... but I clarify that in the first sentence of the post. Sorry about that.

[Laelth]

10. O.K. Staff will probably give you a good listen. Cool.

And best of luck.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Solly Mack]

4. Excellent!! K&R

[Time for change]

24. Thank you

[Senator]

5. Godspeed Citizen Activist

And consider trying to do more than "be heard." Try to get a tangible commitment or refusal out of him/them. Force him/them to "go on the record."

If you'd like me to expand on this suggestion/tactic, just ask.

--

[Time for change]

8. Yes, please.

I'm not very experienced in this kind of thing, but Paul is, so I think we'll be ok. But your advice would be appreciated.

[Bjorn Against]

11. The best advice I can give you is to blog about your experiences after the meeting

When I met with Susan Gaertner a couple of weeks ago the follow up blog that I wrote ended up having a much bigger impact than the meeting itself, and a week after writing that blog the terrorism charges were dropped. We still are fighting the conspiracy charges, but by making the experiences of the meeting public additional pressure was put on Gaertner and I was able to make progress.

I would suggest that whenever you meet with your elected representatives that you blog about your experiences, be polite but tell both the good and the bad things that they said. If they refuse to give you a commitment then tell us that you couldn't get a commitment so that we can all write and put pressure on them. The private meeting is important, but the public followup is even more essential when it comes to accomplishing your goals.

[Time for change]

14. That's great advice. I will do that.

[Senator]

15. Something to look over.

http://talkingimpeachment.com/toolbox/citizen-lobbyist">Here is a guide that was produced for those meeting with congress/staff over impeachment.

The specifics may not track exactly (though many do), but it contains the basics of how to try to do more that just "be tolerated" in such a meeting. Concentrate on the "Conducting the Meeting" section for what I had in mind. The basic point is to "force" a dialog to elicit and confront their rationalizations.

--

[Time for change]

27. Thank you. Quite a lot of information to digest!

[tomp]

6. good luck! hoping against hope. nt

[Time for change]

29. Thank you

[Vidar]

7. Thank you.

[Ocracoker16]

12. Good for you!

We need a lot of people to do what you are doing which is being assertive and contacting your congress person and arranging for a meeting with their staff or them to discuss why we must investigate and prosecute those who were involved in torture. We have to say that we very strongly disagree with Prersident Obama and AG Holder on this issue. We must ask them to fight on our behalf. We need them to understand that our top level officials have made up their minds to avoid adressing this issue so we need them to push back against their efforts to "move on" We don't feel like this is an issue that should be minimized. We need them to cry out and refuse to stand with Obama on this particular issue. They need to tell Obama that while they agree with many of his policies, they are not willing to support him on this issue. They would be remiss if they were to allow Obama and Holder to trivialize horrendous torture carried out by Americans.

I found the talking points to be very valuable for my own efforts. I commend you for taking this very important step in what will be a very tough battle.

[Time for change]

37. Exactly --

Good luck with your own efforts in this regard. I'll report back on what happens.

[bleever]

13. DU (and defenders of the Constitution) could ask for no better advocate.

Your work is consistently exceptional in its breadth, organization, and conciseness.

You have my thanks, and my very best wishes, Tfc.

[Time for change]

47. Thank you so much bleever

I'm off to DC now. I'll check in when I get back. :hi:

[KoKo]

16. K&R......

:toast:

[Time for change]

69. .

:toast:

[slipslidingaway]

18. Best of luck!!! n/t

[Time for change]

70. Thank you

[HopeOverFear]

19. good luck and please report back and tell us how it went

[Time for change]

71. Thank you --

Here's an initial brief summary:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5492163&mesg_id=5498518

I will post in much more detail later -- probably tonight or tomorrow.

[bigtree]

20. ha!

can't think of a better representative, TFC.

Best of luck, and thanks :hi:

[Time for change]

72. Thank you very much bigtree

:hi:

[Coffee and Cake]

21. Kudos

[Time for change]

73. Thank you

[bertman]

23. You are truly an inspiration, Time for change. Thank you for doing this for all of us.

[Time for change]

74. Thank you bertman --

It was fun:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5492163#5498518

I'll post more details later.

[Canuckistanian]

25. Go get 'em

Even if nothing happens, get it on record that we tried.

Godspeed.

[Raksha]

26. K & R - bookmarked

The best of luck to your delegation tomorrow...you speak for everyone who cares about justice and the rule of law, and for everyone who truly loves America and the human race itself.

[Time for change]

75. Thank you Raksha

We had a good discussion today. I'll get back with more details later.

[dysfunctional press]

28. whatever floats your boat. but it ISN'T going to happen. NOBODY will be held accountable.

that's just not how american politics works.

sorry. :shrug:

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. Well, yea...but if Obama's approval drops 10-15 points

and it's clear the base is being lost along with Independents because of this inaction, THAT's the way WH politics works.

[dysfunctional press]

43. but it won't...it's just not that big an issue to that many people.

[Norquist Nemesis]

49. Time will tell.

Democrats have never been three monkeys when it comes to elected officials in the way the Cons are. Independents, by their very nature waver from one side to the other.

When Pelosi took impeachment off the table after a clear theme of "Make them accountable!", it was a slap in the face. Obama campaigned on transparency and rule of law, and those who voted for him expect that to be followed. Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw a poll that said a majority of people want either investigation or prosecution...the numbers are already a majority and growing, IMO.

[dysfunctional press]

57. don't hold your breathe.

i don't believe for a second that anything will come of it- so i'm not going to be at all disappointed when it doesn't.

[Time for change]

34. You never know

That's what they said about Nixon.

They said that we would never get rid of slavery. They said we would never have a large middle class in this country -- and then FDR came along. You never know about these things, and if everyone had the attitude that things will never change, then they never would.

[dysfunctional press]

44. there just aren't that many people that are clammoring for it...

most people are more concerned about their jobs or lack thereof, and how to make the mortgage/rent payment next month.

[DFW]

31. Our Congresspeople need to know one thing:

We do appreciate it when they listen to us, but that if they choose not to, we
can choose to support someone else in the Democratic primary next time. There
is a reason that Lieberman no longer has a D before his name. Van Hollen is DCCC.
He ought to be open to this as much as any House member.

[Dystopian]

32. KandR.

Heartfelt thanks for your activism.
Best wishes!


peace~

[Time for change]

76. Thank you

Best wishes to you.

[radfringe]

33. in NOT, at least investigating

in NOT, at least investigating - 2 precedents are being maintained/set
bush-cheney admin set the precedent for "whatever the admin does is not illegal". they accumulated a lot of unfettered presidential power, free of oversight, free of accountability

this was passed onto Obama.

by NOT investigating, and not considering prosecutions (if the investagation warrents it) - Obama is maintaining that power, and setting a new on whereby previous administrations won't be held accountable

some may say "but Obama wouldn't use presidential powers in the same manner of Bush-cheney" - that may be true - HOWEVER - what about future presidents? We've had lousy presidents in the past, and probably will have them in the future - do we want this kind of power and lackof accountability in their hands?

[Time for change]

77. Indeed -- If no action is taken against the gross abuses of power of the Bush administration

we are condoning those actions. We will live with the consequences or the threat of consequences until we decide to emphatically refute those crimes -- by holding the perpetrators accountable.

[zeemike]

35. I think this will be of great help to Obama

If an independent commission does the investigation it takes it out of his hands.
And then the truth can come out without him getting the blame for playing politics.
Good for you TFC and thank you.

[Time for change]

79. Thank you zeemike

I don't see a commission taking matters out of President Obama's hands. Neither Congress nor any commission has the power to prosecute criminals.

But I think that Obama can achieve what you're talking about by appointing an independent prosecutor. S/he would have the power to investigate, indict, and convict the guilty of their crimes, and there should be no reason why Obama should be accused of playing politics for that (though I'm sure the Republicans would try).

[pat_k]

36. Go get 'em! Might find a useful tidbit or two in this. . .

Asking questions that challenge their failure to act is often far more powerful than "presenting the case" for action. They are not derelict for lack of information. They are derelict for lack of political will. And they are rarely forced to question the wrong-headed beliefs that sap their political will to act.

And, as noted above, publicizing what happens is Extremely important. Don't be frustrated if all you get are the same old, same old, mindless memes. When you report the questions and the answers, their evasions and meaningless memes are shown in stark relief.

Obama's recent attempts to rationalize his dereliction provide some quintessential examples of beltway blindness that you might use as a jumping off point for a few pointed questions.

And if staffers keep responding with "I can't speak for Rep. Van Hollen," you can use the failure to get answers to your crucial questions as a reason to schedule a follow-up meeting with the Rep. Or ask if he would commit to responding to questions submitted in writing.

Obama sez

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. . . We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

You might ask:

• "Without specifics of a given case, do you believe is it reasonable to conclude that every agent who participated in war crimes actually held a 'good faith' belief that bashing a captive's head against a wall 30 times, or fill_in_the_atrocity, was not cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment?"


• "Isn't that the type of question that must be determined at trial on a case-by-case basis?"


• "If we don't try the CIA agents who participated in war crimes, doesn't every agent remain a suspected war criminal? Aren't we denying them an opportunity to clear themselves? Aren't we staining the entire agency?"

Obama sez

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. . . nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

You might ask one or more of the following

• "What is wrong with 'dividing' known war criminals and the Americans who applaud their crimes from the Americans who are dedicated defending our Constitution and enforcing the law?"


• "A little more than a year ago Rep. Van Hollen quoted the following from Admiral Donald Guter, Judge Advocate General: 'Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal... Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise--or even to give credence to such a suggestion--represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.'" (http://vanhollen.house.gov/HoR/MD08/Newsroom/Floor+Statements+and+Speeches/2008/03-011-08+Van+Hollen+Statement+on+the+Intelligence+Authorization+Act+for+FY+2008+Veto+Message+from+t.htm">link)
  
  "If to suggest that waterboarding is not torture is 'an affront to the law,' how can we possibly be 'righting our course' by refusing to charge those who ordered it done, those who did it, and those who 'advised' the torturers that their intolerable crimes were not crimes?"


• "How is it 'revenge' or 'retribution' to indict a criminal when the evidence is undeniable?" To charge is not an act of 'retribution.' A trial is not punishment. When evidence points to guilt, it is the means by which we pass judgment, free of passion or prejudice. Only when the verdict is guilty do we order the lawful punishment/retribution."


• "Is it not for the courts to determine whether or not a defendant's state of mind is a mitigating factor?"


• "How does allowing those who committed war crimes to remain in positions of power serve to 'right our course'?"


• "We have an affirmative duty to prosecute war crimes. If we fail to do so, aren't we unlawfully harboring war criminals? Aren't we merely shifting the obligation to prosecute to the other parties to the treaty?"


• "What could possibly be more 'divisive' or damaging than being forced to look to other countries to "deal with" our war criminals and bring the USA back into the community of civilized nations?"


• "If trials are nothing more than a useless exercise in "laying blame for the past," why do we try anyone for anything?"


• "Do we really want to forge a 'common future' with unrepentant and untried war criminals?"

Of note

It appears that one of the memes Van Hollen invokes is that groups who are calling for action (which necessarily involves taking Democrats to task for inaction) are forming a "circular firing squad" that is "not helpful."(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/20772.html">link) He is quoted as saying that our "singular focus" should be on "expanding the Democratic majority." If that meme should happen to turn up at the meeting -- if he says something like: "Rather than 'wasting time' prosecuting, we should be focused on gaining seats," one response might be to ask

• "What size majority is necessary to prosecute torturers? How many in the House? In the Senate?"

If you actually get some characterization of a "big enough" majority, you might follow up with:

• "So we have your support for prosecuting torturers at that point? You refuse to prosecute until we reach that level?"

Misc

If he rationalizes refusal to call for prosecution by claiming that Obama "banned it" so we can "look forward," you might use it as an opportunity to ask

• "How is looking forward any different than looking away?"


• "How is non-prosecution any different than legalization and approval?"

If he asserts that he has 'consistently denounced torture,' a possible response is to observe

• "So did Bush. How is your position different from Bush's? Even Bush didn't say he wouldn't prosecute torturers."

================

Our thoughts are with you!

[Time for change]

80. Thank you for all the ideas

We touched on many of those issues today -- though we didn't encounter much resistance, so didn't have to argue about it.

I'll post in much more detail later.

[deacon]

38. Simple. Are they more gutless than Obama? Change? The rule of law? No action,, save the words. n/t

[pleah]

39. K&R

[Demeter]

40. How About Seizing Bush Property By Eminent Domain to Use for Guantanamo Prisoners

that have no place else to go?

[Time for change]

81. I'll vote for that.

[deacon]

41. I was a John Edwards supporter at one time, then an Obama supporter up until this.

Being a democrat is about being disappointed. He is the leader of the party and I actually believed with all his talk that I could actually feel proud of someone with courage. Again, we are back to the spineless leaders in our party.

[SammyWinstonJack]

52. .

:thumbsup:

[ChiciB1]

66. Every Single Word You Just Wrote Applies To Me. Big On Edwards... In The

end actually went out and campaigned for Obama, now I'm in the wilderness or so it seems!

My addiction to politics and what input or even participation I might have seems almost nil these days! I want to HOPE, I really, really do! I really, really do! I NEED HELP!!

[deacon]

42. And whats the difference between this guy and Pelosi with impeachment is off the table?

There's not enough evidence even worthy to look into??? I should have voted for Hillary.

[MasonJar]

45. Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Thanks for going and for sharing

You will be a strong voice for justice.

[Time for change]

82. Thank you

[schmuls]

48. Thanks for all you are doing. Love your avatar

[Time for change]

83. I like your avatar too

It looks very familiar.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

50. Time for change

thank you for taking this action. I appreciate it.

[Time for change]

84. I enjoyed it.

Let's hope it amounts to something.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

51. Wonderful to hear this, TfC

You have the support of many behind you; it's good to know some very great minds are also activist.

[Time for change]

85. Thank you Blanche

It's great to see all this support.

[peace frog]

53. Great news and best of luck, TC!

Let them know we consider anything less than full investigation and prosecution to be completely unacceptable, and our votes will follow our convictions.

[Time for change]

86. We certainly did stress the need for prosecution

We'll see what happens now.

[Piewhacket]

54. Hear hear!. tap tap tap. Godspeed.

Prosecution of crimes is both backward and forward looking.
Prosecution is for IDENTIFICATION, REPROACH, and PUNISHMENT of
criminals, but also to DETER others from committing crimes in FUTURE.

When you are the chief law enforcement officer charged with
the sole authority to prosecute crimes, a blanket refusal
to investigate and prosecute crimes and ongoing criminal conduct is
beyond a breach of duty and public trust given, it is
the face of PUBLIC CORRUPTION.

[Time for change]

87. Thank you -- I guess that if enough people keep saying this they'll eventually get the point

[ooglymoogly]

55. Torture in the name of "we the people" without our consent

cannot stand, without showing the folks responsible for who and what they are; That we the people can be vindicated from this horror. O does not have the right to speak for us in this monumental injustice; That he does think he has that right is a travesty of justice rivaling those of the B*sh admin. This injustice will not die and be swept under the rug as just government as usual.

[mmonk]

56. Good luck. Bookmarking.

[RalphieD]

58. Bush and his followers are criminals

They should be rounded up and put in camps and tortured.  We
accuse Chavez, Kim Jong-Ill, and Ahmadenijad of being thugs
and we make them look like the Little Rascals.

[pberq]

59. good luck!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Superb. The prosecution of criminals should not be based on political convenience. K&R

[bobthedrummer]

61. K&R, I'm working along similar territories in Wisconsin.

[Time for change]

88. Good luck with your efforts

I lived in Wisconsin in the late 90s.

[florida08]

62. God Bless your efforts

and your delegation and may they be successful. All points are of the highest caliber and strength and I can't see any addendum.
We did ratify Geneva in '94 and either we adhere or repeal..it's that simple for me. You make me proud and humble at the same time.

[Time for change]

89. Thank you -- It was a good day.

But it's a long road. More to come.

[Lena inRI]

63. K & R w/tons of admiration and thoughts for success. . .

. . .you are not only a paragon of the good citizen but you have the makings of a true statesman.

I just fantasized your replacing Rahm Emanuel as President Obama's chief adviser. . ahhhhhh. . .what the heck, one needs a diversion now and then!

:fistbump: :yourock: :fistbump: :yourock: :fistbump:

[Time for change]

91. Thank you -- I'll have to try the same fantasy

:fistbump:

[LuckyLib]

64. FWIW, Time, my neighbors and I, 25 years ago, were writing letters to dictators, justice ministers

and despots around the world protesting the VERY SAME behavior we have seen exhibited by our own government with respect to imprisonment, torture, and lack of due process. As members of AI, we were horrified that the governments of countries in the Middle East, South America, Africa, could be treating prisoners so horribly and we took on particular prisoners to follow their status. At the time, we wrote our letters sure that our country would never engage in such practices, that basic respect of the Geneva conventions was in place. To see our own nation engaging in such practices has been horrific. We have become what we so abhorred in others.

[Time for change]

92. Yes, that is so ironic and so sad

There are just too many Americans you can't see it -- or won't see it. Our country has to learn a lot more humility.

[ChiciB1]

65. Thank You SOOOOOOO Much For ANY Effort Regarding This Issue!!!

I've almost stopped blogging of even checking much news these days. Thought I would be so much happier by now. I too AM NOT pointing fingers at Obama himself, HOWEVER... with both the Administration AND CONGRESS.... SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!

I KNOW there's so much to get done, but THIS is an issue that just CAN'T be ignored! THE CONSTITUTION may be outdated and needs updating from time to time, who am I to say for sure... but THE CONSTITUTION is what it is! IT IS AMERICA!!

[Time for change]

93. Yes, it must be done.

You're welcome.

Without our Constitution we're just a lawless nation without a conscience.

[Riceburningluva]

67. Thank you.

I would love to help

[Time for change]

94. You're welcome. That's great.

This is the organization that organized this, if you're interested:
http://www.amnesty.org/

And welcome to DU :toast:

[Time for change]

68. I'm back

We met with Karen Robb of Congressman Van Hollen's staff.

Overall, the 3 of us would say that it was a good meeting -- but not good enough. Ms. Robb listened attentively to everything we said, and I would say that she was in basic agreement with 90% of what we said. There were no substantial disagreements on the major issues.

However, she does not know whether Van Hollen will sign on. He is still considering the issue, gathering information, etc.

She agreed that we will follow-up with her, and she thanked us for discussing these issues with her.

I will discuss the meeting in much more detail in a new post -- probably either tonight or, more likely, tomorrow.

Thank you all so much for your support and advice.

[nilram]

78. Thank YOU for doing this

I've bookmarked this and will use it in correspondence with my representatives.

[Time for change]

95. That's great to know that this has been of use to others trying to reach for the same goal

Thank you for letting me know.

[peace frog]

90. Thank you, TC

Good work. :thumbsup:

[Time for change]

96. Thank you

:thumbsup: