Eric Holder Seriously Considering Appointing Outside Counsel to Investigate Torture
By Heather Tuesday Apr 21, 2009 5:41am
Rachel Maddow talks to Michael Isikoff about his report in Newsweek The Lawyer and The Caterpillar. This is big news if Holder follows through.
Maddow: Based on your reporting it appears that the White House and the Department of Justice are maybe on very different pages when it comes to the question of prosecutions and torture. Is that what you see going on inside the Obama administration?
Isikoff: Well I have to say, they should be on different pages. Just listening to some of the comments in the last few days, particularly from Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs about how the President is focused on looking forward and not backward and he's not interested in seeing these people prosecuted. You know there's some people at the Justice Department who were listening to that and saying that's not their decision to make.
Decisions about criminal prosecutions are made by the Justice Department based on evidence, the facts and the law and this actually is sort of a taboo about the White House meddling and dictating to the Justice Department about who should be investigated and who shouldn't. If fact if you go and Google Justice Department White House communications you'll the first thing that will pop up is Justice Department guidelines that very specifically lay out the ground rules for communications between Justice Department and White House on pending criminal cases and when, how those communications should be handled and what role the White House has in even learning about criminal investigations, much less trying to dictate who should be investigated and who shouldn't.
Maddow: So are you hearing from sources at the Justice Department that when they heard Raum Emanuel yesterday and Robert Gibbs today saying there won't be prosecutions in that sense there were, there was surprise, there was anger at the Justice Department?
Isikoff: Well we wrote out story before they made those comments and this is a story that first appeared on the web on Saturday in the magazine that came out yesterday, but I can tell you that people at the Justice Department had been wrestling with this issue for some time. Sen. Carl Levin who incidentally has a major new report coming out tomorrow night on Defense Department interrogations and harsh interrogations and how they came about had recommended to Holder the Attorney General appointing a outside lawyer, a retired Federal judge, somebody to look at all the evidence here and reach conclusions as to whether or not criminal misconduct may have taken place. We do report that Holder has been weighing that idea as a possibility. No hard conclusions have been reached. He hasn't definitely decided to do it. But I do know that people at the Justice Department are taking this very seriously and don't think that they take their marching orders from anybody at the White House on this issue. That's considered a no no.
From the article:
But the Obama administration is not off the hook. Though administration officials declared that CIA interrogators who followed Justice's legal guidance on torture would not be prosecuted, that does not mean the inquiries are over. Senior Justice Department lawyers and other advisers, who declined to be identified discussing a sensitive subject, say Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has discussed naming a senior prosecutor or outside counsel to review whether CIA interrogators exceeded legal boundaries--and whether Bush administration officials broke the law by giving the CIA permission to torture in the first place. Some Justice officials are deeply troubled by reports of detainee treatment and believe they may suggest criminal misconduct, these sources say. Even if prosecutions prove too difficult to bring, an outside counsel's report could be made public. For his part, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is still pushing for a "truth commission." In a democracy, the wheels of justice grind on--and the president, for good reason under the rule of law, does not have the power to stop them.
Login or Register to post comments.
after his boss, mr. pelosi gives him permission?
please! show me a subpoena. I double-dog dare you!
...on this matter as the President and the Attorney General? Lol. Your argument is baseless and on that presumption that you are completely informed. Obama clearly knows much more on this subject than you do. Folks like you truly need to reserve judgement until you gather enough facts to fairly determine if the President is compliant with the obstruction or the criminals.
should remove the blinders. knowing and doing are two different things. Obama has released the memos and promised not to prosecute. Eric Holder has promised not to prosecute. that apparently matters not to one of your exceptional understanding of the Great Orator.
I'll reserve judgement. I won't pretend to have all the facts.
stop pretending you are a know-it-all because all you've proven is you know how to bitch. Simple minds with simple anwers can't grasp an increasingly complex world. Poor sap.
You saved me the trouble.
Talk Talk Talk
Talk is cheap.
We are a Banana Republic.
We don't prosecute our ruling class.
But fortunately those terrible animal rights activists are being indicted.
Here
Whew! Now that is a relief. The world must be safe for torturers of humans, animals… what have you.
public enemy #1 is a tree-hugger. meanwhile bybee gets a pass.
I really hope Holder makes good on this. These latest revelations on torture are simply disgusting; and I am so sick of hearing these Repugs blasting Obama for releasing that information, yet they do not blast the actual torture itself.
it looks like a another fitzmas.
President Obama has already (and wrongly) stated on more than one occasion that he is "looking forward and not backward," code for, "I'm going to protect the previous administration now that I'm a member of the club." So which is it, Mr. Obama? Are we "looking forward and not backward," protecting the previous administration or, do you plan on embarking on a genuine path toward truth and reconciliation, healing the nation and the showing the world that the U.S. is indeed, back among the community of nations?
be the deciderer when it comes to who requires a pardon.
Obama stepped in the mess Bush made.
"Looking forward and not backward" doesn't translate to 'track the dog shit all over Mom's carpet' - you have to clean off your shoes before you can 'move forward.'
probably the best way to put it.
bet obamas had to clean plentyof shit off his plate that his corporation buddys fed him!yummy yummy hes got some in his tummy!
... in corporate la-la land. Doesn't matter if you're beholden to them or not, it's what's for lunch.
To hear from someone with real expertise on the subject.
If you can get someone to clean the dogshit while you continue across the room... all the better.
...in every pot.
Gotta love those Regent University grads over at the Justice Department!!
I wonder how many will use their fellow alums when they are under indictment or will they swallow their pride and use lawyers from the liberal bastions of Yale and Harvard?
John Woo received his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his law degree from Yale.
Which shows that not only Regent grads bend over and remain knee bound to power, logic and law nothwithstanding.
If the White House "has no say" in whether the Bush administration war criminals are prosecuted, what is Obama's reason for repeatedly saying various people won't be prosecuted? I don't get it. Why doesn't he just opt out of the discussions by saying it isn't his decision?
That bothered me for the last few days as well. But as more reports come out and are leaked by the Administration's aides I have a theory.
Obama had to release the torture memos. But he was concerned about the CIA. As reported, he was worried constantly about what to release, how much, and how. Holder pretty much told him he had to release the evidence required in the ACLU action - so the first thing he does is go over to the CIA to reassure them he's not "after them"
The reason for this is two-fold. He needs them. He's afraid of them (many are still Cheney-boys).
I don't think Barry anticipated the uproar and outrage over those memos, though. I'm not sure he even read them as closely as some did on the 'tubes. Now he's stuck between two conflicting actions.
Prosecution isn't up to him anyway. He better be careful how much he tries to influence the Justice Dept. I seem to recall a president who tried to do that a few years back, and it didn't end up to good for him.
Everything in politics is a calculated chess move. Obama knew there would be an uproar in the release of the memos... and if the ground support and uproar was enough to get the Justice Department to look into the matter, he (A) got the investigation moving along (B) Republicans can't really come back and say that Obama was spearheading a hatchet job against them. (not that would stop them anyway from embarrassing themselves later.)
Obama and his guys knew what they were doing, but I think you're correct in your assessment about Obama and the CIA.
Was that a smoke screen we just went through? If anybody gets nailed for this it will be strictly low totem.
The Attorney General isn't the White House lawyer. The AG is the peoples' lawyer and serves the Constitution, not the administration. Let's be fair though. Obama has never claimed to be able to tell the AG what to do and what not to do. While Obama may not be pushing for an investigation and prosecutions, I haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that he is trying to forbid them. Maybe it's our wonderful traditional media, assuming that must be what he meant when he said he'd rather not prosecute CIA torturers, I don't know.
As for Rahm Emanuel, he's just being Rahm, a Republican in Democrats' clothing, running his mouth about things that he'll never understand.
have absconded the true blue Democratic party, evicted Howard Dean and abandoned any semblance of caring for anyone but the ruling corporate class. We still have a long way to go to rid ourselves of these shills.
I wasn't happy when Obama made Emanuel chief of staff but I have to keep reminding myself that Obama is much more in the mold of Clinton than he is in the mold of Kucinich.
I thought it was rather obvious, but I think Obama is less like Clinton, but more calculating instead of hip shooting.
I've been wondering for a while now if maybe this wasn't the way things might go..
Eric Holder swears he's his own man and won't be pressured; the President looks forward, not backward. The Justice Dept moves forward and does the right thing..
Maybe I'm over-simplifying; maybe the administration hasn't handled things as well as the might have.. but I'm still watching and waiting and not assuming anything.
A sane voice emerges from the meaningless din of second guessers.
isn't that the bottom line?
yes.
"That's how you get to the top of the pile, by being a liar, a coward, a pervert, and miscreant."
Obama wants to avoid the appearance of being overly partisan and I understand that. While prosecuting torture isn't a partisan function, when have the Republicans behaved reasonably in the last few years? Obama needs some of them to enact his agenda, which I very much support.
If Holder initiates an investigation and appoints a special outside counsel to look into the allegations and then follows where that leads, then Obama can avoid the harshest criticisms. I'm not saying he can avoid his critics because if the past 3 months have taught us anything, it's that Obama can cough and it will be an indication of being a weak, Muslim, anti-christian, facist, socialist, communist to the Republicans, who will then appear to be just as foolish as they are except to the mouth breathing FAUX "News" viewers.
I would think that the "Chickensh*t route" would be for Obama to demand that Holder not investigate or appoint special counsel, (something he has not done), and fire him if he won't cooperate and keep hiring new AGs until he gets one that will toe his line, just like Bush did.
I don't like Obama's attitude on this at all but it's not what Bush would have done and it's orders of magnitude better than "the chickensh*t route"
doesn't cut it anymore.
There's far too much of that going on these days. That's a Republican tactic, don't adopt it because it's just as stupid, not matter which side of the ideological spectrum it comes from.
said Magaret.
And Amen.
If Holder conducts the investigation, this will be called a "political" investigation. by appointing an independent investigater he avoids this. The facts will remain the same.
on Obama's part. He's a Constitutional lawyer, surely he already knows he has no power in this situation and has made that statement opposing investigations so when they happen the GOP Rant Squad can't point fingers at him? Just making the statements he's made already has people up in arms and making it clear to the public that Obama can't say no, that the DOJ has the right, ney, the obligation to proceed with investigations. Maybe, one can only hope, this is a move by Obama to make sure the investigations DO happen.
an AG who is considering doing his frigging job.
considering, considering. I'm considering this I'm considering that I'm . . .
I wait for the day when Dick-Head Cheney and all his inhuman torture loving ilk are in handcuffs and thrown in prison.
Let them all be "free" for the rest of their miserable lives but condemned to stay in Dubai forever. No travel, no speaking tours, no book deals. Just live on one of those ridiculous palm shaped islands forever.
That wouldn't make me happy but that is the least that I could accept.
that the neocon cabal is all over the planet. These cats still have a huge amount of power and won't stop their dirty deeds. Ever. The die is cast. They are who they are and can't operate any other way. From Dubai or Mars, they can be counted on to f*** things up.
Still, the Republicans put too much faith in symbolism IMO.
All this talk about investigations and accountability, since the justice dept. said it was "legal", how can anything they did be illegal IF the congress won't show a spine? And even if congress miraculously grew a spine and decided to defend their prerogatives, they'd still need the SCOTUS to back them up if it came down to a showdown between who had more pull, the prez or the congress. Which I think, considering the court's current make up, is unlikely.
Yes, I say we need full accountability if we're to be a nation of laws, but you know, we aren't a nation of laws, we haven't been for a long time. I think we need to stop kidding ourselves that this particular injustice somehow represents a make or break moment for the rule of law in America.
We don't want the President telling the Justice dept who they should and shouldn't go after. I think we saw how that worked during bush's terms. Gibbs says the "President is looking forward" he didn't say the Justice dept is just looking forward. I'm guessing a deal was made with Panetta that if the memos were made public, none of the agents in the CIA would be targeted.
Now, who the hell knows what might be going on in the Justice dept. Investigations are usually kept silent until charges are to be filed. I think we should just wait a little while and see what happens.
I'm pretty sure the President wants to stay out of all this as much as he can. Lord knows if he got involved the right wingers would go freakin' nuts saying he was on a bush administration witch hunt right in the middle of two wars and a financial crisis.
"Gibbs says the "President is looking forward" he didn't say the Justice dept is just looking forward. "
thanks for saying what I was thinking, but oh so much better.. I certainly don't want to presume to know what's going on inside the Justice Department, the Whitehouse, or anywhere else where I don't happen to be..
I'm just playing with ideas but yesterday when Gibbs said the President is looking forward, it was almost like he said "President" in bold letters or something. It struck me he was perhaps trying to make a distinction between the President and others.
Why is everybody assuming that Obama has attempted to forbid the AG or the justice department from conducting an investigation or prosecuting? I follow the news very, very closely and I have seen no evidence of that at all.
..and still have someone appointed as a Special Prosecutor.
As has been noted, Obama has never said anything about forbidding the AG from investigating
Right!
Obama hasn't said anything about forbidding The AG from investigating and he never will either. The Executive branch (and Congress for that matter) cannot decide what the DoJ investigates or what it does not investigate. The president appoints the AG and the US attorneys at the beginning of his term and after that it's hands off.
The Bush administration tried this and Gonzo, Rove and Harriet the Cleaning Lady were called on it.
Obama simply has no say so in the matter and it's all up to Holder.
It's called "seperation of powers". Congress HAS made torture illegal, decades ago. Those laws are on the books. Congress can no more decide what the Judiciary does than can the White House. They can pressure the judiciary and they can refer things to the judiciary but Congress' responsibility in this case ended when they made torture illegal.
In this particular case, because of the 'national security' angle the Bush admin will be sure to use, the question will become a constitutional one between who's separate power has the most pull. And so far congress has yet to stand up for themselves and deny ANY of the president's claims with any kind of force. And even if they did, it would then become an issue for the SCOTUS, and probably that would break Bush's way. Again.
The Bush administration has been out of power since January 21, 2009, despite what FAUX "News" would have you believe. The Obama administration may or may not chose to cooperate, (I think they will because they are NOT the Bush administration), but it doesn't matter what the Bushies want. They are not in office.
This is how it would break down:
Justice dept investigates and charges bush officials with torture.
Bush officials say the law against torture didn't apply to the president at that place and time because of commander-in-chief, national security, whatever.
At this point it becomes a constitutional power struggle between the president, the president as a position, not a specific president so it doesn't necessarily matter who is currently in office, and the congress. For this power struggle to go forward, congress MUST be willing to state that that argument is wrong and state strongly enough (i.e. have enough votes) to go to go to court over it. And so far they've shown NO willingness to tackle issues of constitutional authority.
Assume congress does grow a pair and decides to fight. Great! Except its the SCOTUS who gets to decide who wins. Unless there are some rapid changes to the make up of the court, I think we know how that is likely to turn out.
Keep in mind I'm not saying Bush & co are right. I think they should rot in jail forever. I'm just saying the system is rigged against it.
As far as Obama being president now, and not Bush, its important to keep in mind, as president he may strongly disagree with Bush's actions, but he also may not want to give away the power to commit those actions.
It doesn't matter what Bush or his cronies say! They can't argue cases to the Attorney General on behalf of any administration because they aren't in power anymore.
Here is the reality:
Justice department investigates.
Nervous Bushies write Obama, asking him to quash investigation
Obama makes a choice: either to cooperate with the DOJ or to defend his predecessor.
Meanwhile Bushies wait helplessly, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T IN FUCKING POWER ANYMORE.
The argument will be: What we did wasn't illegal because: [insert presidential excuse of choice here]
It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, though I think they are very wrong.
Once they make that claim, a court will have to decide if its true or not. Assume every court that hears it decides, sanely, that its not true. Every time that happens it'll get kicked up in appeals to the next court until it lands in the SCOTUS.
And you have just exceeded your limit. Let's go through this once more and then I have to get up and go:
"The argument will be: What we did wasn't illegal because: [insert presidential excuse of choice here]"
Whose argument? You are making the assumption that the Obama administration will defend the Bush administration and I've seen no evidence of that from them.
"It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, though I think they are very wrong."
Again, who are "they"? "They", the Bushies, can't argue for the administration because they are not IN the administration.
"Once they make that claim, a court will have to decide if its true or not. Assume every court that hears it decides, sanely, that its not true. Every time that happens it'll get kicked up in appeals to the next court until it lands in the SCOTUS."
Everything you said is predicated on the entirely unsupported assumption that the Obama administration will defend the Bush administration.
If you got rid of your car, legally and title has been transferred, then someone comes along and steals that car from the new owner, can you then go to court and claim that car? Of course not. You have no standing in the case. It's the same thing here: The Bush administration has no standing to advocate for the administration, only the Obama administration has that standing. They can choose to support and defend Bush policies or they can choose to put pressure on the DOJ to investigate and prosecute Bush's crimes or they can choose to remain neutral. The. Bush. Administration. Has. No. Voice. In. The. Matter. Because. They. Are. Not. In. Office.
Please do yourself a favor and take a government class. I've tried to be nice but there is a difference between being ignorant and deliberately obtuse.
You seem to be skipping the investigation part and proceeding right to trial and appeal. Trial is a different matter. Trials are the result of investigations and the venue for prosecutions. The Bushies will have a voice at trial, (if tried), but whether they are allowed to submit any briefs during the investigation phase is up to the AG. Not Obama and not Bush.
The current president doesn't have to defend the actions of a past president in court.
Ok?
Cheney gets arrested for ordering torture. He goes to trial. He claims: I'm not guilty because the president, who was president at the time, said it was ok.
The argument then becomes a constitutional one of prerogative between the congress, who makes the laws, and the president who is supposed to follow them. Its not that Bush said it was ok, its that 'The President' said it was ok. The question the court has to decide is does the office of the presidency have that power. It has nothing to do specifically with Obama or Bush.
Ok? We're discussing actions that took place when Bush was the president. Therefore his claims at the time are relavent.
The mistake you're making is in thinking that if anyone in the Bush admin (including Bush) uses Bush's presidential authority as an excuse for something, the current administration has something to say about it. It doesn't
use that as a defense, since he very publicly and repeatedly stated that the Vice-President was a separate office. Not subject to the wishes of the President. Not part of either the Executive or Legislative Branch, but a branch of government wholly unto himself. to which, I introduce in evidence, this:
http://www.realityprime.com/articles/the-valu...
You write: "Cheney gets arrested for ordering torture. He goes to trial. He claims: I'm not guilty because the president, who was president at the time, said it was ok."
And the judges will laugh at his argument and dismiss it without giving it any consideration, because it is utterly without merit. Even if he had the backing of the then-President, that doesn't immunize him from anything. The US justice system includes the Nuremberg conclusion that "I was only obeying orders" is not a valid defense.
The only thing that could possibly immunize him is if the *current* President (Obama) extends executive authority to him. Then, and *only* then:
"The argument then becomes a constitutional one of prerogative between the congress, who makes the laws, and the president who is supposed to follow them."
EVERYTHING Hitler and his minions did was "legal" .. their laws said it was .. but it didn't save them from prison or the gallows ..
That was done by foreign powers, not German ones.
Immunity would imply he's guily, but can't be punished. His argument is because he had the president's cover at the time, he's not even guilty.
And yes, I do think it's a ridiculous argument, and that's why it'll be up to the SCOTUS to be the final say in whether or not Bush's interpretation of executive power is correct or not because lower courts won't buy it.
You are arguing semantics. No matter how you phrase it, your hypothetical Cheney defense still comes down to, "Not guilty because I was following the President's orders."
And again, the court wouldn't need even one second to laugh it down (unless the court is corrupt and packed with loyal Bushies, but that is an entirely separate matter).
have consistantly struck down the notion that "national security" supersedes the law.
"Look we were and are at war there are no rules in war anymore these fine Americans did the dirty job of protecting America now let's put it behind us and go enjoy a ball game, shop some malls, enjoy a food court, go to the target range, ride your street racing bike, whatever get's you off."
Obama. Has. Not. Tried. To. Forbid. Investigations. Or. Prosecutions. At. The. Justice. Department.
When he does, I'll be right here with you, screaming more loudly than you. Until then, try to remember that Obama is not Bush.
spend some time with the kids, put a little money aside for a rainy day, be thankful for what we have, didn't have, won't have, might have, perhaps may have, will we have, what do you have, would like to have, going deeper, relaxing . . .
It's been said that some people get off on endless specious arguments.
..that a Special Prosecutor has not yet been appointed is the tell-tale. Why hasn't one been appointed already? That's what I want to know. Does Dick Cheney actually have to hold someone down in Macy's window and waterboard him to be investigated? Does W have to say "I didn't mean what I said when I said we tortured that sominabitch."
What does it take? If the GOP is so high and mighty patriotic, why haven't they called for a Special Prosecutor? Same for the Rushbo's, Bloofah's and Mannatees; where's their outrage?
I am not holding my breath and I won't stop beating the drum to have the criminals taken to task. Crimes were committed and its time to pay the piper!
didn't work to well.
..because of this, as long as he appoints that Special Prosecutor, I volunteer!
The Democrats are fast establishing themselves as the party of the toothless warm fuzzies while the Conservative nuthouse sits grinning because they know that they're getting away with the plundering of a nation. I can understand Obama's prioritizing and I sympathize. The Bush Gang's scorched earth policy left the nation near collapse. It doesn't take a genius to see why Bush was in such a hurry to leave Washington after the inauguration. Personally, I think this was planned. Still, Obama should not be talking amnesty before a thorough investigation has been done. This is just irresponsible. He can stay in the loop without having to be in total control.
Hopefully, he'll level out, but between this and the Administration's leaning towards leaving our healthcare in the hands of corporate parasites, I'm more than a little discouraged.
Blah Blah Blah. We all know that no one will be prosecuted for this.
Mr Obama you have really let me down. I'm a life long democrat and you had my support anyways but damn it, where is my change?
Obama was just another side of the same coin. Since you thought you would be able to bullshit us after we got you elected, I will have you know that you will not be elected to a second term.
the go no where show 2009, merry "fitzmas"
"A Sternly Worded Letter?"
And I agree that in the last few years the toothless Democratic Congress has been frustrating to behold.
I would respectfully remind you of a few things:
1) Think of how Watergate unfolded. It started as a burglary, but once the door was kicked open, the investigation took on a life of its own. I mention this because I watched almost the entire thing unfold in real time, as you might have. I think within the last week the door on this investigation has been set ajar.
2) I am willing to let Obama follow his own strategy on this. When you think about how far he's come with the odds stacked so heavily against him, I think you have to admit his MO in this matter may not be as transparent as we're used to seeing, but I think it is a mistake to conclude he has no way to see this to fruition.
If it turns out that he allows Shrub and his minions to slide, I'll be the first to work to replace him; but I'm willing to be patient for awhile yet in hopes the this investigation in its infancy.
Perhaps it's a sign of advancing age on my part.
The independent investigation for torture is doable but be sure they can't be bought off (Warren Commission) or KILLED. Cheney is a criminal. Hooked up with the mobs (international) AND he corrupted Bush and the rest. He would find a way to intimidate an independent investigator. Threats of murder is easy for a guy who blasts his friend in the face with a shotgun for arguing with him. Murder, to save his ass, isn't out of the question. Arrest the bastards now. Prosecute and hang 'em. Texas style. By the law!
Judge Roy Bean/And The Thought Police!
Now, where's that cabin boy Bush? O' ye dirty disease-ridden mangy rotten leprous swine, villainous thievin' bilge-rat, masqueradin' as a seafarin' man …..
Say yer prayers ye blasted guttersnipe, and prepare tae meet the demons in the fiery place that's been prepared fer you and your ilk!!!
Hang em by the yard arms I say and let them do the 'jig'!
Then we'll attend yer last jig, an' pay ye our respects when ye're hanging from the mizzen ratlines, chokin nice an' slow wi' yer face turnin' a nice purple.
The real pirates.........BushCo
[Deleted. This comment violated the terms of service. If you wish to discuss this subject, there are many fine sites on the internet which cater to you-Sitemonitor]
[C&L is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is not public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' point of view. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP. If you feel you cannot follow the few rules we have, then you are certainly free to post elsewhere-Sitemonitor]
What are you guys going to say when nothing at all comes of the "so called" independent investigation. Listen, nothing will come of this. Neither Holder or Obama have any power to do anything about the C.I.A. Obama's not the boss. The bankers are the bosses. The C.I.A operates outside of the law. If this were not so, answer me this, why is Obama continuing the practice of "Rendition"? He says he'll close GITMO and he does not believe in torture but, he's willing to fly a person to another country with no constitution and torture them there? What's wrong with this picture? That's not the person we all got behind after he won Iowa!!! Is it? Did you think THAT guy would approve of something like that? I sure didn't. But I know now, he's no different than Bush. He's just a prettier, calmer face. Just what we need to rock us to sleep and keep the empire's foot on our throat. Wake up people.
they are going to say what they allways say! i dont like this ...........but im going to stick with him ,..... because camelots being recycled with obama and...... the new kennedys are back!
You're becoming a caricature.
well thankfully im not a noser ,you are!
[Deleted-Sitemonitor]
I mean, the congress can't even get Rove down there to testify under oath. Think about that. YOU try to disregard a subpeona? Go ahead and try? I'm going over to Fox Nation now and get those dummies riled up.
And please take Tyree with you.
you know for a cheap chicago shyster you aint half a bad guy lefty!
know your enemy! i do !
is being charitable.
good luck ! and remember you know the truth others only know what the government wants them to think!
you think they like what I'm saying over there about Cheney and Bush? Get out of your left right crap for a minute. Here's some insight. I'm african american and even though I've researched the bloodline families and the NWO, I supported Obama. I was Naive. I wanted to see an intelligent black man get in there. I was stupid. His handlers are the same people who got us in this mess in the first place. He's a puppet. Just like Bush was. So if you are a sheep on the left (you), then you hate what I say. If you're a sheep on the right(foxnation, hannity, etc), you hate what I say. I tried to like the guy. I was desperate to beat the conservatives and be proud of a black man. Sorry, he is no black man to be proud of no more than Bush was a good white guy. Screw the parties. Seek the truth. Again, way to go Tyree
proud of yah son !a thinking mans rare to find! its all about the truth, and not about the partys, or race,
I wish more people would just wake up because while we argue about this b.s. (who he shook hands with, whether he got his dog from a shelter, how much apologizing he's doing for America) he's doing the really evil stuff. Rendition is still in effect and he's bankrupting the country on purpose!! Like Zillions of dollars out the door to the bankers and nobody knows where it is. Obama does not care where it's going. He's just doing what he was told to do. Please people, watch the movie called "The Obama Deception" and it should all make sense to you. And just in case you think I'm a right winger, there are similar movies out there that expose what Bush's role is in this whole thing.
well keep up the good fight my own man, now that has a good ring to it, my own man, how few can say that , its all about the pods and who belongs to wich pod, its as i have said right now obama and the partys are blowing smoke up the pods noses, its becomeing an [oh! look over there moment] you got to weep for the pods!
The best part about it is not being naive any longer. Therefore, you're not surprised when he does something evil. Like how he said he does not want to prosecute those who tortured. If i were still naive, i would be shocked by that. I'm not shocked. Watch, he'll look more and more like Bush everyday
yeah !its looks like the change was only [chump change!]
why do you hate yourself! Find out about internalized oppression then try to come back and talk some sense. You sound exactly like what Field Negro describes as a House Negro. Check his site out too and do try to edify yourself, please! You are starting to keep some bad company.
Read a book or two dude. Malcolm X is my hero. I don't hate myself or anyone for that matter. I just don't buy everything that Obama is selling JUST because he is black. Should I love these gold teeth wearing, crack slinging mugging on tv news camera negroes too just because they are black. Don't get started on this house vs. field negro stuff dude. My mom was in the struggle just like Tupac's mom. what struggle are you from? Stone thrower. Glass house occupant?
have not read a book or two. If you are assuming that civil right struggles are limited to Blacks, then I have a beachfront property to sell you right here in Southern Colorado.
Dude!
I have a hard time imagining that this wasn't planned.......Obama gets the limitations of the office and the subtleties of the law so he puts it in Holder's hands. Holder sees the implications of "partisan witch-hunt", so he does his job and passes prosecution to a neutral party. All the while, Obama assures the grunts that HE isn't going to pursue things (I am not a prosecutor, Holder is....) but, playing it diplomatically, he opens the door as wide as possible to secure the testimony of operatives who were silenced under Bush. Meanwhile, the House will hold hearings and impeach Bybee who will likely roll on Gozo, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al. Prosecutions will happen, deals will be made, the US saves face on the world stage (and Spain doesn't prosecute OUR people), The Republicans are left either supporting torture or with no ammo to combat Obama's "not so weak" stance on torture, prosecution and the rule of law. He then gets to "look forward" to righting the other wrongs of the last 8 years and the Right Wing Noise Machine further implodes on itself.....THIS is called thinking 6 moves ahead - this is chess, THIS is what he's good at.
hey why don't we exchange emails so we can talk when all of that stuff doesn't happen. Nobody's rolling over on anybody. Rummy is free, it's a rap. Obama supports torture. If he didn't then he would want to see those who tortured punished. Rove is laughing it up. No way anyone from the Bush administration is taking an oath ever. You think Spain is really going to do something? American can't even get Harriet friggin Meyers sworn in to testify. She claims executive privilege!! Obama has continued rendition!!! Why? Yeah, he's playing chess. It's just chess AGAINST the American people, not the republicans
I'm really hurt by this guy. I have a son who's 16. I had to tell him that Obama was a fraud. This was months after we saw him get elected and we cried together. It was a big deal for us. But, alas, I had to tell him the truth about Obama. The dream was shattered. Imagine that.
1) You had to tell your son what to believe.
2) He can't think for himself.
3) He believed it.
You must be proud of "shattering" your son's dream
oh how well i remember thoes heady days and nights here with the voices crying [merry fitzmass hooray a repig lawyers going to prosicute libby and get him to roll over on cheny and the bush crime family, and how they cried night after night when after i said they were nuts to even think fitz was doing anything but a smoke job, and i was full of poop, ah thoes were the good old days! so merry fitzmass once again ,they never betray thier masters!
Last I heard, Libby was CONVICTED of quite a few felonies and was sentenced to prison. Though his sentence was commuted by Bush (which was total BS), he is still a convicted felon....he still broke the law and the only reason he didn't "roll" on Cheney and others was because he's not sitting in jail. Of course, Cheney still wanted him pardoned and Bush said no.....so he still has to live the rest of his life as a felon.
I'm sure Scooter is being well taken care of, regardless of his felon status or not.
oh boo hoo! hes a free man and hes RICHHHHH!AND hes going to suffer because hes wresteling with his concious the rest of his days !bwhaaaaaaa hahhhhhhhhh lol!
Nice summation and for the most part accurate.
Hey, trolls! This isn't POLITICO. Go away.
Facebook group that's been around awhile urging a special prosecutor.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=505298...
Tell your friends.
Unless they're trolls.
It's a waste of time "kool aid sipper" It ain't gonna happen. Like Tyree said, they never ever betray their masters. Obama does not care about us. He cares about staying alive. One false move, he's outta here. Just like J.F.K. Just like Lincoln. Just like Vince Foster. Just like that guy that Putin poisoned a few years ago. Oh and that anthrax? American made huh? Who has the clearance to touch that stuff? And we caught the people who mailed it right? Oh , that's right, we never caught em. Don't hear much about that on the news do ya?
"My Own Man
* View
* Posts
* Comments
History
Member for
4 hours 24 min"
BAD TROLL! NO BISCUIT!
Wow, I like having discussions. Congratulations!!! Ya got me!! Why focus on me? Focus on the discussion. I can hear others who are reading this saying "yeah, good point". Your move.
say what? how long do you have to be on here before you not a troll ? he is ! an american with a valid opinion ,before he became a c and l poster! use a better grade of paint next time!
More than a day PLUS you can't spout crazay conspiracy theories and disparage the normal workings of the political process. And you're tossing the word "valid" around kinda loosely, Tyree. Do you mean valid as in "a valid syllogism" or "valid" as in provable by scientific inquiry, or "valid" as in entitled to have even though stupid? It's just not clear.
im sure a 14 week veteran heres more worth reading then say someone whos been here allmost from the beginning! and yet even i get called a troll by the pods!
I'm on the left. It's always funny when you disagree with people and they go crazy. Proves the point that there are crazies on the left and the right.
It's really his own opinion. Does that clear it up for you? Also to the moderator, it's great that you allow all this back and forth petty arguing between us and the name calling but you deleted the facts about 9/11 that I put up here. Geez.
That's because the topic is not about 9/11. It's about Obama's position on whether or not investigations into the Bush administration's torture policies should be carried out or not.
There is an Open Thread here available every night at 8:30, feel free to post all you want about 9/11 then.
he is an angry, impatient angry punk. That's o.k. you can be angry and still function but you have to be aware of when it leads you to poor decision-making.
He already shows a proclivity to do so by the company he latched onto in a very, very short time.
oh look a pod just spouted pearls of wisdom!
Always comes a point where I end up having to say "you are funny as hell" I'm talking to you Chicano. I won't be addressing you anymore because you have yet to post a single fact. Just your dumbass opinion.
Yeah, thank god for "Ignore user"
LOL
Don't know if I'd classify MOM as a troll just yet, there certainly are long standing posters in here who think along his lines.
Let's say we agree to disagree.
thanks for your efforts in taking out the trash!
all those "facts" he graced us with.
who you calling trash douchwad?
I've been a registered member longer than ANY OF YOU so bow down to me-- damn it. (oh, geez.)(sigh)
And this is Obama's fault how, again?
Baltimore Sun: Obama open to further inquiry into interrogation tactics
I don't even know what a troll is. Just sounds like an insult. But at least you sound rational. I can appreciate that. Mountainman, I just think that Obama's trying to have it both ways and not piss anybody off. He appointed Holder. I know he can't control him but let me ask you this. Are you against torture? I am. So if i was Prez, i would say "Anyone who engaged in or authorized torture, I'd want to see them prosecuted." Why won't he say that?
Go read the article I linked to .. or click on Google News and read the bevy of articles from a variety of news sources that will answer that question for you.
It does not say why he won't advocate prosecution. It does say this "For those who carried out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House, I do not think it's appropriate for them to be prosecuted,'' the president said of the CIA's interrogators.
in case you didn't know it TORTURE IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL. Nuff said. If you won't prosecute those who engaged in it, you are just as corrupt as they are. Period
He certainly could say it as an opinion, just like he said he was open to further inquirey into the matter, but he can't authorize it, that's up to Holder at DoJ.
Yeah he could say it. And yes it's up to Holder. But, Obama is the change. right? So show us. Stand up and let us know where you stand. If nothing happens at all. If nothing changes, will he lose your support?
He already has my support, always had. So far, he hasn't done much that I disagree with. That's not to say that that can't change in the future, but so far I have no problem with him.
I will have to let him show his true colors over time before I can truly judge those who still support him. It's like Bush after 9/11. I supported him. But, there comes a time where he did so much evil stuff that you had to be crazy to support him (plus i started reading more). That time will come with Obama too. Little by little, he'll show you that he does not care about you and that he's pretty much like Bush.
I hope your wrong, but then only time will tell, right?
Yep, time will tell. Funny thing is he has to do all this bad stuff while he's still very popular so it's gonna be happening quick.
Sorry your so jaded about it, but good luck with all that anyway,
Later
yep peace
"The Obama Deception"
"My own little Man"
Login or Register to post comments.