Quote:
What I find completely unacceptable is the attitude of so many people, including apparently President Obama, to not want to get to the bottom of what went on, and to prosecute anyone and everyone guilty of a crime. That's like saying, oh, let's just let the murderer or rapist go (or Bernie Madoff for that matter), because you know, it's in the past, and we should just move on. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. If we aren't willing to go after the most powerful people in the country (in government and business) for committing crimes, then we should throw out the lawbooks for everyone. Otherwise this is NOT a free country, and we nothing more than a bunch of hypocrites. |
Quote:
I think the potential cost to the country of having criminal trials that will be perceived by many as highly partisan, and creating a greater divide within the country than already exists, outweighs the benefits. In these troubled times, that is the last thing we need. I want documents declassified and a structure in place to review the Bush administration's actions from a bi-partisan legal perspective....for the purpose of providing safeguards, if necessary, to prevent those actions from being repeated. If that happens and the truth is brought to light, historians and the people will make the final judgement of the last eight years. I can live with that. |
A fine-toothed partisan fishing expedition could seriously affect Obama's ability to get things done. Prosecute the big and obvious, start with the ones with real, valid cites (hint hint), and let the rest go, no harm no foul. That's how it works in the real world.
|
Quote:
|
Well I don't know. I guess I think war crimes are a lot more serious than everyone else. And abuse of power. And trampling over the Constitution, when you are sworn to defend it.
If we don't get to the bottom of the whole war crimes issue, we will never regain our trust with the rest of the world. That is just my opinion, but I feel very strongly about it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
So he goes to his AG and asks for a legal opinion to justify broader powers than those specified in the AUMF. In my opinion (and I am not an attorney) the resulting memos were crafted in such a way that it provided the plausible deniability ("oh sorry, those underlings who implemented my orders just misunderstood my intent"). And he had the balls to send his staff to get that legal cover while his AG is in a hospital bed groggy from just coming out of surgery. The role of the AG is to enforce the law on behalf of the "people", not provide a president with justification or lega cover to skirt the law in future actions. Clinton....show me where he ever asked his AG to write a legal opinion to provide cover for any future actions he might want to take. Obama...show me where he has done the same in the last two weeks? Kennedy....I would have been a supporter but I was too young at the time, but I think having your brother serve as AG is a bad idea. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I believe there is evidence that Bush reversed the process. along the lines of (paraprashing) "I know the law says we have to abide by our international treaty obligations, I want a DoJ memo to give me the cover to get around it in our war on terrorism." All the more reason to have the above cited memos declassified. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I guess we have different beliefs on transparency and accountability as being in the best interest of the people and ensuring rule by law. |
Select committees should have some oversight. Anyone with a computer and a FOIA request should not.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.