'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Monday, March 30 at
has this statement from Jonathan Turley regarding whether the Obama administration will prosecute the Bush administration abuses of power like torture saying "No. I think that the White House is still desperately hoping that people will forget about this. President Obama has clearly been told by his political advisers that this would not be good for him and not be good for his administration. But, of course, this isn't supposed to be a discretionary act.
We are bound to do this.
Now, the Spanish inquiry creates a very interesting prospect for Obama that he can take the high road finally, right now, by saying that we prefer to do our own investigation. It's not my choice. I'll have a special prosecutor in the United States look into these, not have foreign tribunal. He can do that and take the high ground, and he can regain what we've lost. But if he doesn't, then he will be blocking not just an investigation in the United States of known war crimes, but he'll be blocking an international effort to look into the same acts."
Maybe Obama wants a pretense to go after W because he fears that the GOP will go after him with the slightest provocation and, as indicated above, his advisors understand that.
Breaking international laws is worse than consensual sex.
The article "Obama Adviser Cass Sunstein Rejects Prosecution of "Non-Egregious" Bush Crimes' at
has this quote regarding close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein "Prosecuting government officials risks a "cycle" of criminalizing public service, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive
efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton - or even the "slight
appearance" of it."
To that I'd think that a stain on a blue dress isn't as an egregious crime as breaking international laws.
Obama thinks that going easy on big bro 43 will appease the GOP. Bipartisanship is not returning to the US anytime soon. Our economy is in a dire spot now, but the GOP has decided to just say no. Evidence of this that Obama's budget passed the House and Senate on April 2, 2009, by votes of 233-196 and 55-43, respectively. No Republicans voted for the budget in either chamber.
The GOP doesn't care that the international community has started to deal with big bro 43's torture crimes either.
The article "Leahy suggests that truth commission is 'not going to happen.'" at
states "In a meeting on Monday with Vermont citizens, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) admitted that the truth commission he has advocated to examine Bush administration crimes like torture most likely won't happen...he told us that his truth commission had failed to get the broad support it needed in Congress, and since he couldn't get one Republican to come behind the plan, "it's not going to happen."
We face the ignominy of a Spanish court dealing with big bro 43's torture crimes, but not one GOP member will face reality and prosecute the vile W. Leahy says "I am not interested in a panel comprised of partisans intent on advancing partisan conclusions. I regret that Senate Republicans have approached this matter to date as partisans. That was not my intent or focus. Indeed, it will take bipartisan support in order to move this forward. I continue to talk about this prospect with others in Congress, and with outside groups and experts. I continue to call on Republicans to recognize that this is not about partisan politics. It is about being honest with ourselves as a country. We need to move forward together."
These are not ethical humans. We are not an island. We have to cooperate with international law.
The article "GOP threatens Obama's legal nominees over release of torture memos." at
states "Harper's Scott Horton reports that the Senate Republicans are determined to protect the Bush torture legacy, "promising to 'go nuclear' and filibuster
[President Obama's] legal appointments" if he releases legal memos regarding the
previous administration's torture policies."
The GOP will stall Obama's appointments to obstruct justice. The international community isn't going to accept this and we look reprehensible if we don't bring big bro 43 to justice.
All of the criminality involved with revoking the Geneva Convention protections for the detainees was what? Torture does not work.
The article "Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots" at
states "In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said."
W lied about Abu Zubaida's role with bin laden. Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda.
Remember how Cheney kept lying about Hussein's role in 9/11-even after big bro 43 admitted Hussein had no role in it? Well guess what? Cheney is still lying about the efficacy of torture also--even when no one else can, as the article continues "Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.
"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."
Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.
The agency provided none, the officials said."