Political Discussions
The Wheels of Justice are beginning to Turn!
Posted by satijournal • 5/14/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Karl Rove, politics
Karl Rove is scheduled to be questioned tomorrow (Friday) about the attorney firings.
Former top White House official Karl Rove will be interviewed tomorrow as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into the firing of U.S. attorneys during the Bush administration, according to two sources familiar with the appointment.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051402816.ht...
The prosecutor is Nora R. Dannehy.
www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/washington/30usattorney.html
User Comments
-
This is still alive?
Or was it simply revived?
If we are going to go down this road, we better investigate all past administrations.
Let's start with Clinton who fired 93 U.S. attorneys.-
This is only the beginning. As far as Clinton, most presidents bring on new attorneys when they take office. The difference here is, these were fired for purely political reasons. The entire justice department was politicised, which is extremely dangerous for our democracy.
-
The wheels of justice are also beginning to turn, possibly against Nancy Pelosi. I'm thinking she and Obama opened a big can of worms with this "torture memo" biz. It may, and probably will come back to haunt her.
That she knew about the EIT's and then pretended to be outraged and act like she was unaware - and all to satisfy the far left in the Demo party is just dumb. Did she think that the CIA didn't take notes at those briefings?? -
Yes, it does look like she was caught lying and she should be replaced as Speaker, but the main issue here isn't what Pelosi knew or didn't know. It's how our government degenerated to the point where it tortured prisoners. Those responsible need to be punished so we can restore our country's respectability.
-
Going back to the previous administration to prosecute sets a very dangerous and bad precedent. It has the potential to undermine our democracy. And I say this about EITHER political party going back on the previous admin. I do not say it because it would be Dems going after Republicans. It is wrong to look backward. We should look forward.
I have no problem with the EIT's used, and let's not kid ourselves. What was done was not torture. Ask the American POW's in Germany in WWII or the American POW's in Viet Nam what torture is and they will all, (if they had the chance) I am sure say that they would have gladly traded how they were treated with being water boarded. The EIT's saved lives and no permanent harm was done. The detainees have all their fingernails, limbs, body parts, etc... Lives were saved. American lives. Since Obama opened this can of worms up, he should put it all on table. But of course, he won't. So since that is the case, let's go forward and forget about digging up bones. -
No, your opinion is that it's not torture, but it has been defined as torture since WWII, so the law states that it IS torture. Ours is a nation of laws and no one is above the law.
The statement that "it sets a dangerous precedent" is just the right-wing talking point. Many "dangerous precedents" were set during the Bush administration: torturing detainees, wiretapping, politicising the justice department, invading a sovereign nation that was no threat to us...
It sets a dangerous precedent if we don't investigate these crimes. -
The one's who are fired are almost always fired for political reasons. You want persons in those positions who have as much in common with your understanding of the law as possible.
This is all crap, it's a hunt by the left and nothing more.
The Left would go after Bush for the way he wipes his butt if they thought they could.
"Breaking news. National scandal, former President George W. Bush believed to have wiped from front to back during his time in the White House. Nancy Pelosi calls for a butt wiping truth commission to be established." -
Please site the law that defines water boarding as torture.
So you think that it is okay for an administration to go head hunting on the previous administration? You don't think that would be a bad thing? A divisive thing? By the way, I don't spout talking points. I feel that it truly would be a dangerous precedent.
And to say that Iraq wasn't a threat to us is ridiculous. I will admit that Saddam tossed his WMD's but he sure as hell fooled the entire world. He was a megalomaniac that bluffed his way around the Middle East. He wanted to appear stronger than Iran because he feared another war with them. He felt empowered to thumb his nose at the United States because we failed to take him out the first time and because Clinton merely lobbed a few missiles at some terrorist camps. He funded suicide bombers, gave aid to terrorists and committed genocide on his own people. He was a threat to everyone. -
Torture, according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, is: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."
While the law doesn't specifically mention waterboarding, it also doesn't mention ripping out someone's fingernails with pliers, or any other methods. If you've read anything about how the body reflexively reacts to waterboarding, you'd agree that it's torture as our government has since WWII.
As far as "headhunting," we know that crimes were commited. If you believe that no one is above the law, then you'd agree that there should at least be some investigations.
-
-
I know this is bad to say, but I enjoyed watching her squirm today. I have not seen that much stuttering since Porky Pig.-
LOL. I want to respond to that, but wait...I had it written down here somewhere...
-
-
@satijournal: I find myself agreeing with you again, I'm not sure how to handle this.
-
Yeah pelosi will end up flying her jet into the sunset
-
In addition, Obama's admin has made for very treacherous grounds in which to practice as a lawyer. Here is an excerpt from Andrew McCarthy's letter to Eric Holder.
"Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government."
I strongly suggest reading this letter in its entirety. It was a tad long for me to copy and paste here, but just google it and you can find numerous links to the complete document. It is fascinating how he (McCarthy) points out the many ways that Obama has flouted the "rule of law" that he accused Bush of doing so many times. -
Water boarding obtained info that saved Los Angeles from another 9/11 style attack.
Yeah, right! They were in imminent danger but security officials didn't even notify the mayor!
You can believe it if you want. I don't believe it for a second. Hopefully, we'll find out the truth some day. -
We won't find out the truth because Obama refuses to release the memos backing it up. That must really make you feel good, that way you won't have to admit EIT's worked.
-
-
The United Nations? Hmmm. Now there's an institution to hold in high regards....
Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340. The definition of torture used is as follows:
1. "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;
This is from the criminal and penal code of the Federal Government of the United States. It does not include anything even remotely close to water boarding. And yes, before you spout off that I don't know what water boarding is I have researched it and watched numerous videos on it. Short of experiencing it myself, I can say that it is not torture. Is is fun? Is it enjoyable? No. Of course not. It is effective and it was only used on three detainees. The three that were deemed having the most pertinent information for the safety of American citizens. Water boarding obtained info that saved Los Angeles from another 9/11 style attack. If it saved only ONE American life, then it was worth it. Unless you are against doing what is necessary to save American lives, I cannot understand why you think it is torture? Maybe because the far left says it is? Maybe because you only think what they tell you to? I don't know why you are against it. I only know that you are.
I don't know if you have children or not, but I for one would consent to ANY means that saved my child from evil. I could sit and concoct scenarios in which water boarding obtained info from a suspect and it saved the life of my child. Of course any sane and loving parent would want that. It would only be anecdotal argument. So what I will say is that I am in favor of EIT's because they save American lives. I am against torture. I am in favor of EIT's. They are two different things.
I also feel no one is above the law. But how is it against the law to give a legal opinion? That is all the attorneys did and now the Obama admin wants to put them in jail. Laughable. So much for change. Looks like liberal bizness as usual.-
That code goes directly against the Geneva Convention, to which we are a signatory.
Perhaps we could just white-out our signature, and go about acting the same way as our alleged enemies do. Yeah, that sounds good. -
Anok, the Geneva Convention was never meant to cover terrorists.
This is a direct quote from the Geneva Convention...
"Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"
and
"Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government"
Also, Eric Holder himself admits that water boarding is not torture. Here are some excerpts from the House Judiciary Committee meeting with Mr. Holder.
"At Human Events, Connie Hair excerpts some on Eric Holder's, er, interesting testimony on waterboarding (among other things) yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, thanks to some terrific questioning by Committee Republicans:
[Rep. Dan] Lungren [(R., CA) and the state's former attorney general] then switched gears to a line of questioning aimed at clarifying the Obama Justice Department’s definition of torture. In one of the rare times he gave a straight answer, Holder stated at the hearing that in his view waterboarding is torture. Lundgren asked if it was the Justice Department’s position that Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training were being tortured.
Holder: No, it’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we’re trying to do is train them —
Lungren: So it’s the question of intent?
Holder: Intent is a huge part.
Lungren: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?
Holder: Well, it… uh… it… one has to look at... ah… it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act — that is not torture."
Here is the link to the entire document.
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2M0ZjljYjAzYzFiYzljZjNkNDY1YTE1YmVhM...
So how can the Obama admin admit on one hand that the EIT's are not torture and on the other hand want to prosecute those who were in favor of them? And I like the way Holder tries to discuss this in light of "training our soldiers" instead of directly answering the questions. -
I've covered the Geneva COnvention/torture of terrorists quite heavily. The Geneva convention states, explicitly, that of the detainees are not covered by the Geneva COnvention, they are to be transferred to a neutral country - end of story.
Torture is not permitted under the Geneva Convention PERIOD.
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2007/11/reply-to-sonia.html
In the Geneva Convention it states:
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
It continues to state:
"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
And goes on to say (just in case the combatant may not be protected):
"When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict."
Which, even if some of the detainees fall into this category, Bush has still not complied with Geneva Convention Laws.
And further states:
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument -
Good, then if we ever start torturing terrorist detainees, then you might have a point.
Even the Attorney General of the U.S. says it isn't torture.
But I guess you just decided to ignore that part of my post... -
The Attorney General said it IS torture:
“If you look at the history of the use of that technique, ” Holder replied, “we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam. … Waterboarding is torture.”
archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/jan/16/nation/chi-holder_16jan16 -
sati....Holder said that when he was a nominee for US Attorney General. What I cited is what he said most recently. So which Holder should we believe? IT IS!! No, wait, IT ISN'T!!! Give me a break.
-
No, he said intent is a factor. If somebody volunteers to be waterboarded, obviously that's not torture. You can spin it all you want, but he has said and he believes waterboarding is torture when used to try to force a prisoner to talk.
-
OMG sati....have someone teach you to read, wouldja?? I will copy and paste the following for you. Like I said if you have problems with the big words, have someone help you out.
He did not say water boarding on a detainee is torture, not if he is going by the brief HIS FRIGGIN' Justice Department filed.
"The Attorney General may perhaps want to take a look at the brief his Justice Department filed about three weeks ago in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Torture is a specific intent crime — both the Justice Department and the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have explained that a person cannot commit it unless he has the intent, motive and purpose to torture (i.e., inflict severe pain on) the victim. The question is not, as Holder claimed, whether it was "logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person"? With a general intent crime, the adage is that people are deemed to intend the natural, logical consequences of their actions. But that's not enough for specific intent crimes like torture. As Holder's Justice Department put it:
T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”)
In any event, the actions you take to waterboard are essentially the same whether the one inflicting the treatment is a miltary interrogation-resistance trainer or a CIA interrogator. (I am not saying all waterboarding is the same, nor am I denying that some waterboarding — such as sadistically practiced by the Japanese in WWII — rises to the level or torture. I am talking here only about these two situations: U.S. military trainer and CIA interrogator.) If Holder is correct that the military trainer does not commit torture because it is not his intent to inflict severe pain but to "equip" our military to deal with what he calls "illegal acts," then the CIA interrogator cannot be guilty of torture either since his intent is not to inflict severe pain but to collect life-saving information."
Here is the link again...
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjAwY2M0ZjljYjAzYzFiYzljZjNkNDY1YTE1YmVhM... -
So this guy's opinion is proof that Holder believes waterboarding is not torture?
I'll say it again. Someone's opinion is not proof of anything. -
Good. I will surely remind you of your words when in the future, as in the past, you try to prop your own misguided opinions up as fact.
-
My word is fact.
-
ROFLMAO!! Your word is.......fact? It is factually biased and wrong 99% of the time.
-
I included the Geneva convention passage that outlines what may or may not be done to detainees of any sort.
It's pretty specific, maybe you should reread it. Or work on your reading comprehension skills.
Torture is forbidden PERIOD. Any methods that cause discomfort or distress is considered torture. Ergo, waterboarding is torture, and not permitted. PERIOD. -
So where do we draw the line Anok? It is well documented that CIA has tortured and sponsored torture going back to certaintly the 80's, and probably for the whole span of it's existance. Are we going to drag Bush41 into court for his running the agency in the 70's? What all did Henry Kissenger know about and condone? Have we really stopped, or is it still going on? Probably
-
"Any methods that cause discomfort or distress is considered torture."
So is sleep deprivation torture? Making detainees sleep on a hard concrete slab? Threatening to put a bug in a small confined space with them? Are these things torture, Anok?
I put it to you, HOW would you obtain the information vital to the safety of the American public?
For the sake of conversation, you are now the person in charge of deciding how to interrogate detainees. You know, through Intelligence channels that there is an attack being planned and close to be carried out on American citizens. You have some high-value detainees that you know have knowledge of this attack. HOW do you get the info necessary?
"Please, Mr. Terrorist, would you kindly tell me what I need to know to stop your fellow terrorists and capture them?" Are you THAT naive that you think that would work???
I ask you to please tell me how you would get the info.
-
-
We should pull out of the UN anyway.
-
Okay, that's what right-wing pundits say. Why do you think we should pull out. Ready, set, think! [Play the Jeopardy thinking music here]
-
Rahm Emanuel isn't big on the UN either...
-
-
Wow, now I am right wing again, cool. To start, they are just another receiver of legalized theft, which is taxation. Now please don't respond with the funds they receive are voluntary, because ultimately they come from the citizens via taxation. Where in the Constitution does it say I have to give my money to the United Nations? They have a problem misappropriating money they receive, and they did a bang up job in Somalia.
How many people remember Michael New? This is from wikipedia, and you can go his website at www.mikenew.com.
"Michael G. New is a former United States Army medic who gained notoriety in 1995 after being court-martialed for refusing to wear a United Nations peacekeeper uniform and serve under a UN commander.[1]
He was awarded the Andrew Jackson Award by The Conservative Caucus in 1995. A book was written about his case, explaining the rationale for disobeying an order considered illegal. (MICHAEL NEW - Mercenary...or American Soldier?) His legal appeals spanned twelve years, ending in 2007 when the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. At the heart of his legal arguments is a secret Executive Order, Presidential Decision Directive #25, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and remaining classified to this day. This document is the one the government used to justify the order for American soldiers to serve under foreign military officers, under the auspices of the United Nations, particularly in Macedonia, Bosnia, and other military actions during the Clinton Administration."
Thank God for Bill Clinton, huh? I was in the army, and I distinctly remember taking my oath, and it stating nothing about having to serve under a foreign commander. Some might think this is funny, and or trivial, but I do not. Can anyone argue its constitutionality in the affirmative? Here is another quote;
"They would oppose those “entangling alliances” that Jefferson mentioned which lead to treaties like NATO and organizations like the United Nations. They believe these can lead to unnecessary entanglements with other nations, and may ultimately usurp the sovereignty of the individual."-
That's kind of a silly issue, don't you think. And when you're in the military, you're the property of the military. If they tell you to wear a tutu, you have to do it.
That said, you don't think we should work with other countries as peacekeepers? Keeping peace is a lot cheaper than going to war.
-
-
We should not interfere with other nations, trade being one of the very few exceptions. Do I think it's silly? No, did you serve? It does not surprise me that you see no problem with it. Somebody elses money, principals, and liberty are always easy to give away when they belong to another, and the absence thereof would benefit the collective.
-
Liberty, if you click on the "reply" link, your reply will line up with the other replies under the post you're replying to.
So you think we should interfere with the trade policies of other nations? How so?
Personally, I think we should have more isolationist policies, including tariffs on products that are made in countries that pay slave wages. But sending peacekeepers around the world is good public relations. We need allies in the world. As the Bush administration proved: bullying does not work.
-
-
Ooops! WP
-
I should have clarified, among the relationships a nation should have and not be viewed as interference is free trade. Do you really think our presence in other countries has fostered "good public relations?" I must have missed something when I see protests from all over the world calling us imperialistic. I would not send our men and women to foreign countries and endanger their lives when it provides no direct security for our nation. And your tariffs only increase the price of the goods being imported, when in other world markets, the same goods are priced lower. So what do we do with the nations paying slave wages? Send the UN, I guess.
-
While it's true that placing tariffs on imported goods from countries like China where companies can pay slave wages will drive up the cost of goods, in the long run, everybody wins.
It creates a level playing field for workers here, which will result in more jobs being created here. More jobs here means more tax revenue for balancing our budget. It also means more spending, which is good for our economy. It also means that if these foreign companies pay their workers more, the tariffs will decrease, which will be good for their economies.
Now, right wingers like to argue that tariffs helped create the Great Depression. That may indeed be true, but it wasn't the tariffs specifically that were bad; It was how they were implemented. They were too severe.
-
-
As I have stated in my blog entry "Haguedelic Baby" and on more than one of these threads, whether or not torture was committed in guantanamo or not is irrelevant as it relates to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, because the systematic and AUTHORIZED torture/prisoner abuse in Iraq is so clearcut, flagrant and against forces that had never formally surrendered. So deal with them, and we can argue about Gitmo later!
-
The Bush administration was trying to pack the courts with judges who despised the restraints imposed by the constitution as much as he did. Obama by comparison is a Hamiltonian (which in my Jeffersonian view is greatly imperfect, but nonetheless better than whatever Bush is). Hamilton was among the least liberty-promoting of our founding fathers, but even he was an advocate of Habeus Corpus:
"...confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government."
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
