Bush suddenly an interesting character again

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

I agree that someone higher than Libby (Cheney?) should be held accountable..but its not gonna happen and at this point, I would prefer to look ahead.

BTW, Undertoad...if Tice, in his recent interviews, had provided any detail beyond just the general outline of what he observed in the way of potentially illegal spying on citizens by the NSA with an authorization from Bush, he would likely have been subject to arrest under the Official Secrets Act.

What I would like to see is an independent commission like the one proposed last month by the Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee.



Not for punitive purposes against Bush administration officials, but rather to ensure that questionable abuses of power that occurred over the last eight years are not enabled through dubious legal justifications for Obama or any future president. Bush would be required to waive executive immunity for anyone other than himself (which is probably unconstitutional under most circumstances anyway) and I would even give sweeping immunity to lower level persons who might have been engaged in those questionable practices to get at the truth.

Something along the lines of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

So you don't bush officials should be prosecuted if they are found guilty of committing a crime?

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.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

So you don't bush officials should be prosecuted if they are found guilty of committing a crime?

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.

Prosecutors at every level make value judgments all the time as to whether it is in the public interest to proceed or not with particular cases of alleged criminal activity. In other cases, they compromise (offer plea bargains) to get at the truth.

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

The biggest and most obvious ones were tucked in safely behind a wall of plausible deniability ("Mr. President, you dont need to know that.")

[sugarpop]

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.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

The biggest and most obvious ones were tucked in safely behind a wall of plausible deniability ("Mr. President, you dont need to know that.")

He has admitted in interviews that we tortured people. How is that hiding behind anything?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

The biggest and most obvious ones were tucked in safely behind a wall of plausible deniability ("Mr. President, you dont need to know that.")

Certainly you don't believe for one minute that Obama, or for that matter Clinton did not receive the same treatment. The days of Kennedy are long gone.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Certainly you don't believe for one minute that Obama, or for that matter Clinton did not receive the same treatment. The days of Kennedy are long gone.

Bush wanted to use an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) issued by Congress immediately after 9/11 (and then a second AUMF for the invasion of Iraq) to be able to justify any subsequent action in the name of fighting terrorism, including spying on citizens and denial of basic rights to and torture of detainees.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Bush wanted to use an Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) issued by Congress immediately after 9/11 (and then a second AUMF for the invasion of Iraq) to be able to justify any subsequent action in the name of fighting terrorism, including spying on citizens and denial of basic rights to and torture of detainees.

Sorry but there really is no evidence to support that Bush specifically said, "Hey guys, go figure out how to spy on citizens and deny of basic rights to and torture detainees." That is a fantasy of people who hate Bush. Those were events which evolved over time with subsequent results. It was not till much later that it was evident in the vagueness of the directives that people began to realize what they had unleashed.

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").

Broader powers, sure, but who says he set out to prevent basic rights and to torture? Certainly there must be a smoking gun right?

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.

And they were denied.

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.

Sure, and as we discussed before Reno did the same thing.

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.

It is not so much about what Obama has not done yet, it is about the history of all presidents back at least to the days of Kennedy, whom was more involved in the day to day operations of military and clandestine activity, where they all use plausible denial.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sorry but there really is no evidence to support that Bush specifically said, "Hey guys, go figure out how to spy on citizens and deny of basic rights to and torture detainees." That is a fantasy of people who hate Bush. Those were events which evolved over time with subsequent results. It was not till much later that it was evident in the vagueness of the directives that people began to realize what they had unleashed.

That is why I believe that these memos, written by DOJ attorney John Woo et al, in the months after 9/11 could very well be the evidence and should be declassified:

Fourth Amendment doesnt apply to military operations..in the US

Laws and treaties regarding treatment of prisoners

Options for interpreting the Geneva Conventions

Convention against torture has limited applications in the US

Legality of communications intelligence activities

...and the whole damn list.

http://www.propublica.org/special/missing-memos?s=1

The public has a right to know and it would pose no threat to national security.

[Undertoad]

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.

The Executive branch constantly gets DOJ legal review of things. It's supposed to work that way.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The Executive branch constantly gets DOJ legal review of things. It's supposed to work that way.

I dont think many previous DoJ legal opinions were kept secret in order to allow subsequent actions.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Fine...all the more reason to have those DoJ memos declassified.

I agree they should be declassified. In 50 years. Maybe more. I do not support the idea the public needs to know every tidbit of info. That is what we elected officals for. Let them provide the oversight. It does not always need to be released for every arm-chair Monday morning quarterback to review so they can weave conspiracy theory into it. I would never support that.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I agree they should be declassified. In 50 years. Maybe more. I do not support the idea the public needs to know every tidbit of info. That is what we elected officals for. Let them provide the oversight. It does not always need to be released for every arm-chair Monday morning quarterback to review so they can weave conspiracy theory into it. I would never support that.

How can Congress provide oversight w/o access to these documents?

I guess we have different beliefs on transparency and accountability as being in the best interest of the people and ensuring rule by law.

[TheMercenary]

Select committees should have some oversight. Anyone with a computer and a FOIA request should not.