Mort Zuckerman
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: SALON: Prosecution of Bushies- They *all* knew it was wrong |
 |
|
To: emcsweegan@nasw.org, zerhoune@od.nih.gov,
SpinLyme@yahoogroups.com, kshepard@calea.org, fitzmas@gmail.com,
patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, modelt1918@sbcglobal.net,
jdrazen@nejm.org, letters@courant.com, Jgerberding@cdc.gov,
michael.cole@po.state.ct.us, conndcj@po.state.ct.us, executive-
editor@nytimes.com, managing-editor@nytimes.com, news-
tips@nytimes.com, the-arts@nytimes.com, bizday@nytimes.com,
foreign@nytimes.com, metro@nytimes.com, national@nytimes.com,
dvbid@cdc.gov, brigidcallahan@optonline.net, trvl@hotmail.com,
illinoislyme@aol.com, jlender@courant.com, tinajgarcia@yahoo.com,
jhornberger@fff.org, thomas.carson@usdoj.gov,
thomas.ryan@po.state.ct.us, kurtzh@washpost.com,
georgewill@washpost.com, pj@allegorypress.com,
commissioner.dcf@po.state.ct.us, FalNields@aol.com,
bransfield@comcast.net, vtsherr@comcast.net, oca@po.state.ct.us,
freethinker@charter.net, scott.murphy@po.state.ct.us,
governor.rell@po.state.ct.us, attorney.general@po.state.ct.us,
randall.samborn@usdoj.gov, robert.shiller@yale.edu
Cc: francam@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir,
eugenerobinson@washpost.com, horgan@courant.com,
bmiller@newstimes.com, trvl@hotmail.com, rastro18@aol.com,
billcurryct@gmail.com, amcguigan@rms-law.com, rjmurzyn@aol.com,
paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com, sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com,
criminal.division@usdoj.gov, karla.dobinski@usdoj.gov,
christopher.christie@usdoj.gov, richard.Levin@yale.edu,
harold.koh@yale.edu, james.phillips@yale.edu, inquire@aldf.com,
lyme@idsociety.org
Subject: SALON: Prosecution of Bushies- They *all* knew it was wrong
Date: Nov 13, 2008 10:56 AM
They most certainly all knew it was wrong- that>s why
they had Bush and the Justice Department approve the orders.
This is simple. Everyone knew torture was wrong. That>s why
the CIA would not act without Bushie signing off on the order
to do it.
They all knew the illegal spying programs were a crime- That>s
why Gonzales went around Comey, and Comey then went around
Gonzales and beat him to Ashcroft.
They ALL knew the entire Bush administration was one big
international war criminal establishment. No one should be
exempt if they participated- especially the lawyers.
The Constitution is very clear and so are the Geneva Conventions.
The USA is bound by international treaty to also hold the criteria
of the treaty to be the law of *this* land.
The Democrats who knew and did nothing can go to the can with
them. This will "send a message" to *everyone* that whoever
is an elected representative represents the people, and had
better the hell check with us before they vote or approve of
anything. That>s in their job description.
Those corrupt bastards in Washington are *our* *employees.*
They don>t work for the paranoid Israelis who like to get other
people to do their murdering for them, and they don>t work for
the corporations. They work for *us,* and are supposed to do
*our* bidding.
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
==========================================================
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/13/torture_commission/?source=newsletter
Obama>s plans for probing Bush torture
President Bush could pardon officials involved in brutal
interrogations -- but he may also face a sweeping investigation under
the new president.
By Mark Benjamin
* S S S
* RSS
* Print Email
*
Read more: George W. Bush, Terrorism, Politics, News, CIA, Torture,
Barack Obama, Mark Benjamin, Guantánamo Bay
News
Reuters/Kevin Lamarque
President George W. Bush
Nov. 13, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- With growing talk in Washington that
President Bush may be considering an unprecedented "blanket pardon"
for people involved in his administration>s brutal interrogation
policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead with plans for a
nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under Bush.
The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize
fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in
Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in
Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future
prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all
essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the
investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama
will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably
would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be
one.
The proposed commission -- similar in thrust to a Democratic
investigation proposal first uncovered by Salon in July -- would
examine a broad scope of activities, including detention, torture and
extraordinary rendition, the practice of snatching suspected
terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for
abusive interrogations. The commission might also pry into the claims
by the White House -- widely rejected by experienced interrogators --
that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary
intelligence tool.
Share this story on Facebook:
Share
More
* Buzz up!
* Digg
* Facebook
* StumbleUpon
* Reddit
A common view among those involved with the talks is that any early
effort to prosecute Bush administration officials would likely devolve
quickly into ugly and fruitless partisan warfare. Second is that even
if Obama decided he had the appetite for it, prosecutions in this
arena are problematic at best: A series of memos from the Bush Justice
Department approved the harsh tactics, and Congress changed the War
Crimes Act in 2006, making prosecutions of individuals involved in
interrogations more difficult.
Instead, a commission empowered by Congress would have the authority
to compel witnesses to testify and even to grant immunity in exchange
for information. Should a particularly ugly picture emerge, the option
of prosecutions would still theoretically be on the table later,
however unlikely.
In Obama>s camp, there is a sense among some that such a commission
would essentially mean letting Bush get away with crimes. "People have
called for criminal investigations," one person familiar with the
talks told me this summer as plans got under way. On Wednesday, a
person participating in the talks confirmed that some people involved
in the planning felt strongly that the commission would amount to
"bullshit" and that Bush officials should be prosecuted to the full
extent of the law.
But few think prosecutions are realistic, given the formidable legal
hurdles and the huge policy problems competing for Obama>s attention.
Among them is the complicated task of closing down the military prison
at Guantánamo Bay, which Obama advisors say is a priority. Some
observers outside the Obama camp are also questioning how much
Democrats really want exposed with regard to interrogation, since top
Democrats in Congress were briefed in secret on some of the harshest
tactics used by the CIA and appear to have done little, or perhaps
nothing, to stop them.
Further complicating the Obama team>s planning is uncertainty about
what President Bush might do. On the one hand, a blanket pardon for
anyone involved in the interrogations could be viewed by the public as
a tacit admission of colossal wrongdoing -- after years of public
denial -- which would do nothing to help Bush>s tarnished legacy. Yet,
if the administration fears an investigation will follow Bush out the
door in January, they may not want to leave officials exposed to
potentially revealing criminal proceedings. Bush might seek to frame a
blanket pardon as a preemptive strike against wrongheaded, partisan
retribution.
Constitutional scholars say a pardon of this kind would be an
unprecedented move -- the prospective pardon of not just individuals
but entire categories of people, perhaps numbering in the thousands,
for carrying out the president>s orders , which the White House has
argued all along were legal.
Those scholars agree, however, that Article II of the Constitution
gives Bush much latitude: There is no authority that can stop the
president from doing so if he wishes, and there is no outside check or
balance to revisit such a decision, however controversial it may be.
"The president can do with pardoning power whatever he wants,"
explained University of Wisconsin Law School professor Stanley Kutler.
"It is complete and plenary unto itself."
A blanket pardon from Bush could cover, for example, anyone who
participated in, had knowledge of, or received information about
Bush>s interrogation program during the so-called war on terror. Not
only are there potentially too many people to name without risking
missing somebody, but some of the names are presumably classified.
"The classic pardon is an identifiable individual; here you are
talking about potentially thousands of people involved in illegal
activities," explained Jonathan Turley, a professor at George
Washington Law School. A blanket pardon of this variety, Turley said,
"would allow a president to engage in massive illegality and generally
pardon the world for any involvement in unlawful activity."
There are, in fact, some constitutional scholars who believe a pardon
might actually facilitate more complete participation in a fact-
finding commission, by removing the threat of looming liability.
"Holding people accountable is certainly nice, but in terms of healing
the country and moving forward, so is actually getting a clear picture
of what happened and letting the public make an informed decision,"
said Kermit Roosevelt at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"If we had a pardon followed by something like a truth and
reconciliation commission, that might not be such a bad
outcome." (Roosevelt represents a detainee held at Guantánamo.)
The politics of it would be fraught with danger, however, and could so
blemish Bush>s legacy that some doubt he would go so far. "A pardon is
an admission of guilt," noted Donald Kettl, a political science
professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Bush has argued for years
that his interrogation program was perfectly legal. With a pardon,
Kettl said, Bush is essentially saying, "Gee, maybe we did not do the
right thing."
It is not entirely unprecedented for a president to grant a pardon
based on a category of behavior, rather than pardoning an individual
by name. The day after his inauguration, President Carter pardoned all
those who avoided the Vietnam draft by failing to register or by
fleeing to Canada. George Washington pardoned participants in the 1794
Whiskey Rebellion. Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers in
1865.
But these were pardons designed to foster reconciliation, handed out
to categories of individuals who acted on their own conscience, rather
than the president>s own allegedly illegal orders. "This would be a
different deal completely," explained Kettl. "It would be anticipating
that people thought the official policy of the administration was
wrong."
* S S S
* RSS
* Print Email
* |
|
