The newly released torture memos reveal the comprehensive and premeditated character of America’s torture program. It also highlights the shameful role of now Judge Jay Bybee, who distorts the current law in the area to justify a clear war crime. In the meantime, former administration officials have called the release a danger to national security. I discussed the memos onthis segment of Countdown.
Bybee struggles to justify waterboarding despite the fact that it has uniformly been treated as torture. Indeed both the Red Cross and Bush officials have defined it was torture. Most recently, Richard Armitage conceded that the Bush Administration did engage in clear torture and said that he should have resigned in light of such allegations.
Bybee has difficulty with rationalizing a war crime. This is all the most difficult since the Administration admitted that torture includes mental harm caused by or resulting from “the threat of imminent death.” In an interesting concession, a footnote in one of the memos acknowledges that “For purposes of our analysis, we will assume that the physiological sensation of drowning associated with the use of the waterboard may constitute a ‘threat of imminent death’ within the meaning of sections 2340-2340A.”
Bybee virtually treats suffering as the same as pain despite the prohibition on pain OR suffering. The Administration also proceeded on the express assumption that waterboarding does not cause pain. caused the perception of “suffocation and incipient panic.” Bybee states that waterboarding “inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever.” Rather, “the waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering.”
On waterboarding, Bybee writes:
“Finally, you would like to use a technique called the ‘waterboard.’ In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual’s feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual’s blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of “suffocation and incipient panic,” i.e., the perception of drowning…
“We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death. As you have explained the waterboard procedure to us, it creates in the subject the uncontrollable physiological sensation that the subject is drowning …
“Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statuatory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering … you have advised us that the relied is almost immediate when the cloth is removed from the nose and mouth. In the absence of prolonged mental harm, no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture.”
The memos also address a host of techniques from slamming people into walls to put people into small boxes and then dropping insects into the box.
Recently, it was revealed that the torture yielded junk – despite claims to the contrary by Bush officials.
None of these memos contains obvious national security secrets despite virtually few redactions (which appear to refer to individuals and other obvious redactable subjects). It is simply astonishing that CIA director Panetta and NSC staffer John Brennan claimed that national security would be harmed and held up this release. It is clear that intelligence officials viewed these memos as personally incriminating — which is why the Obama Administration simultaneously promised not to prosecute CIA officials engaged in war crimes. The use of national security claims to shield criminal acts or personal incrimination is a well-defined abuse of classification authority.
Judge Bybee’s role is particularly disturbing. Despite the objections from many of us at the time, Senate Democrats refused to block the nomination and now he will render legal judgments for potentially years to come. Absent impeachment or a sudden crisis of conscience, Judge Bybee will remain on the court imposing judgments on others despite his central role in a torture program and war crimes. Below is the vote on Bybee, you will notice only 19 votes against him and many Democrats voted in favor or not voting at all.
General Michale Hayden has written an opinion piece with the audacity of claiming that the release of these memos puts the nation at risk. This is the same General Hayden who launched a clearly criminal warrantless surveillance program while insisting that he checked with his own “legal experts” at the NSA. Not only did he not reveal that various Justice officials told him that the program was unlawful, but both judges and legal experts have rejected this ridiculous claim of legality. The fact that Gen. Hayden is writing op-ed pieces instead of defending himself in a criminal case is due entirely to Democrats who have blocked any criminal investigation.
The decision of Holder to promise that he will not prosecute CIA personnel for war crimes is a remarkable and unprecedented act. While Mukasey cited the same rationale, Holder has confirmed that waterboarding is torture and thus he is promising not to investigate a war crime after confirming the critical element of that offense. The promise also serves to undermine any investigation of higher officials. Civil libertarians are primarily interested in the investigation of those who ordered the war crimes. There is a legitimate defense for these employees that they were assured that this was not torture. However, that defense only applies if they had a good faith belief — a matter for investigation. There is no basis to promise a blanket immunity for all such employees. Moreover, it eliminates a critical bargaining chip in any investigation of higher officials.
For a copy of the newly released memos, click here.
[Rollcall Vote No. 54 Ex.]
YEAS – 74
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hollings
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS – 19
Boxer
Byrd
Clinton
Corzine
Dayton
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Lautenberg
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wyden
NOT VOTING – 7
Biden
Campbell
Edwards
Hutchison
Kerry
Kyl
McConnell
The nomination was confirmed.
My senator Chuck Schumer supported this monster during confirmation. I can call or write his office, but what else is there to do? A bar complaint? This person simply cannot continue to sit on the federal bench. A bench in a jail cell, on the other hand, would be appropriate.
blogenfreude,
Calling and writing him is a good start. As a former NY’er, who has watched Shumer’s career since its’ beginning I must say that he has become more and more disappointing. given that though it also means he will respond to pressure. Lay it on him but also get involved with the ACLU and the Working Family’s Party. Write and call Congress, call the White House and generally raise hell. That people like Bybee exist is no surprise to us, after all how many Democrats allowed a clown like Roberts to get through? The battle historically has always been between those of the elite who care only for their perks and the rest of us just trying to stay afloat in the world. While there are always setbacks I think we beginning to go ahead on points, but it has and will continue to be a long, long war.
On a lighter front: Go Jets!
When former senator George McGovern asked that famous question at the time”what about watergate”he was dismissed as a sore loser but it took two years to unravel that traversty,hopefully there is a George McGovern out there who will do the same for this situation.And ask the question.
Dear Attorney General Holder,
Please appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute Bush administration officials and agents for violations of the US Code that prohibit torture (18 USC 2340) and war crimes (18 USC 2441) as revealed by the Bush OLC Yoo/Bybee-Bradbury memos.
The primitive, bestial crimes described in these memos alienate America’s allies, repulse the uncommitted, validate our adversaries, corrode practical international laws to protect our captured soldiers and citizens and produce negligible actionable intelligence at the expense of immense needless suffering.
Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute these crimes or prepare for a more ferocious and damaging repetition by future official criminals emboldened by the example of those who successfully flouted our laws. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
The op ed by Hayden, linked above, shares his byline with
Michael Mukasey, of all people!
Curiously, they appear to be laying responsibility at the feet of George Tenet, who was CIA Director under George W Bush AND Clinton from Jukly 1997- June 2004 – without actually naming him…
Thank you Jonathan for your coverage of this issue. I am a British citizen and longtime US resident who has been seriously considering naturalizing as a result of the events of the past year. This apparent move by the administration to block prosecution of acts which are clearly illegal, ostensibly for political purposes is leading me to reconsider.
The language of the Bybee memo that you cite exhibits a casuistry which enabled the Inquisition to inflict its violence upon so many thousands of people for centuries.
I have little understanding of the workings of the law at this point: what options for prosecution, if any, are now available? Does the State HAVE to be the prosecutor for this case, or can other organizations file suit? Can foreign governments do so, as with the Spanish government’s prosecution of Augusto Pinochet?
The op ed piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Hayden and Mukasey have expertly drafted paragraph after paragraph of self-serving garbage. Fortunately, Mukasey will never again be a judge. Would that we could say the same for Bybee.
Sent to the Schume:
You supported Jay Bybee for a seat on the Ninth Circuit. Now that the torture memos are out, it’s clear the only bench he should be sitting on is one in a jail cell. At minimum he should be impeached. Disingenuous legal reasoning used to permit activities universally acknowledged as torture – another hallmark of the Bush administration.
So what are you doing to do about it? Will you call for impeachment? Maybe disciplinary action by his bar? Let me know.
Since the administration shows no promise of prosecuting clearly criminal conduct, and since the courts have no power to initiate a prosecution for torture, Congress is the only branch of government left to which we may turn for decisive action. That power to act lies in its ability to impeach Bybee, who is presently sitting on the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. That he should escape all punishment for his high crimes, while my clients do not benefit from a benign “let’s look forward, not backward” Justice Department policy, makes an utter mockery of the criminal justice system.
We should each demand of our Representative in Congress that impeachment proceedings against Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee for violation of 18 U.S.C. 2340A(a), the commission or attempted commission of torture and 19 U.S.C. 2340A(c), conspiracy to commit torture, be commenced immediately.
James McNair Thompson
Certified Specialist in Criminal Law
Los Gatos California
So: We were once in danger. Now we live in “a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009.” Now, in April 2009, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence seems to be saying, we’re safe.
Good news, if true. And it would be an amazing tribute to the preceding administration’s efforts in the war on terror–efforts that Democrats have been saying for years were making us less safe. Apparently, the old policies worked. The threat from al Qaeda has gone. We now have the luxury of “reflection,” as President Obama put it in his statement, the luxury of debating and deploring what we did back in the bad old days when there was a war on. After all, “we have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history.”
Leave aside how dark and painful the chapter really was. The question is, Is it over? Is the chapter in which we had to focus on preventing further attacks really through? Isn’t there still a war against the jihadists on?
Seems like you’re getting more airtime lately…I think they’re trying you out for that ever elusive 10pm time slot. It would be nice to have someone who understands law being on TV talking about it.
Oh and I’m extremely happy that the White House/DOJ released these memos with only minor redactions. Now for the perp walk
Do you want to see whether W must give a sworn statement about lies, lies, lies and yes this exists about his Presidential Library. Well what more could one expect from the President with the most truncated truth ever.
See it for yourself step right up, come one come all ladies and children of all ages. The show has just begun, the Judge hinted to the attorneys by stating the following:
“State District Judge Martin Hoffman, who is presiding in the case, had urged lawyers for all sides to reach an accord on how a statement from Bush could be taken.”
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/04170n9dnmetbushtestimony.e3c220c2.html
Barack Obama is proving to the world he is a two bit Chicago style politician.
Shame on those of us he fooled.
blogenfreude, James McNair Thompson, et. al.
As Holmes (Sherlock, not Oliver Wendall)used to say “the game is afoot.” We all need to do our parts and both of you are being constructive. Some may scoff but as an old fart, whose always been fascinated by political maneuvering, I believe the country is being given a message to force this to the forefront beyond the choking grasp of the MSM and the Beltway Village. Our part is to keep applying the pressure visibly and vocally on those too scared to act without political cover. Letters, phone calls, petitions and dogged people like Jonathan, Keith and Rachel on the airways can make this happen and we shall see prosecutions to punish those who have done such harm to our country.
What Bybee facilitated for the Bush administration was morally and legally wrong, and hopefully one day he may be prosecuted for it. The fact that he now sits on a federal bench, passing judgment with his faulty, dishonest reasoning, on cases that impact our citizens every day is truly worrisome. He needs to be impeached immediately.
I’d like to see JT at least touch on McCain’s Amendment to the DTA
(Detaintee Treatment Act) back in 2005 and the overwhelming Senate approval of same – when they didn’t KNOW what was actually in the ‘revised’ manual, with regard to ‘revised interrogation techniques’, because the manual’s release was (purposely?)delayed
- until AFTER it passed, as I vaguely recall…
Am I wrong or has the administration only barred prosecution of the CIA employees who conducted the torture? I don’t recall anything prohibiting going after the likes of Yoo and others who created the legal foundations authorizing the activity.
RC-Pay attention – THAT is exactly what I have been suggesting, repeatedly – although not in the form of a question mark.
Like a lot of people, I’m disappointed that Obama and Holder aren’t pursuing the torture gang more aggressively. But it’s worth remembering that Obama is operating in Washington, where literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people are connected to the torture crimes in some way. They might be CIA operatives, or former members of the Bush administration, or members of Congress who failed in their oversight responsibility, or journalists who failed in their role as government watchdogs. There is a huge constituency for the notion of just sweeping the whole mess under the rug and moving on. Given that political environment, I think Obama has done very well just to get the torture memos released– that was a courageous act, and it’s now the job of We the People to apply the pressure and make sure that there is follow-through on the issue.
Those of us who hang out in the blogosphere see the moral parameters of the torture issue very clearly, and we’d like to see some heads roll. But Obama is dealing with a Congress and a press still populated by the sort of nitwits who thought that Bill Clinton ought to be impeached for his romantic adventures and a cheezy housing development on a dirt road in Arkansas. Given what he has to work with, I give Obama credit for what he is doing thus far.
Mr Turley,
I read the summary of your interview with Rachel Maddow on the 16th.
You suggested a special prosecutor be appointed for Obama to take “the right way to go.”
You said if Obama “wants to guarantee that it’s not retribution, and not the blame game, all he has to do is pick an independent person, someone who is manifestly not partisan, and have them make a decision based on the law,” Turley suggested. “Give it to a career prosecutor and ask him to take the investigation wherever illegality may be found.”
Sir, can you give us a name, or two, who you think could perform this job as it needs to be done AND whose appointment would cause minimum howling from the right?
Thanks
Patty C,
You are correct that the administration has only barred prosecution for CIA operatives who relied on the memos. There is no protection for CIA employees that tortured beyond the memos and even before the memos were issued. It also doesn’t bar prosecution of Bush regime higher-ups, including Bush. Here is a link to a Think Progress posting that discusses that very subject. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/17/door-open-for-torture-prosecutions/
rcampbell,
As far as I can see it is the low level people who actually conducted the torture. As I think about it this makes sense to me because look at what happened at Abu Gharaib. They sent some low level people to jail and the ones who gave the orders went free. Would I have conducted torture if I was a CIA agent, no I wouldn’t. FFLEO wouldn’t have either. Some people though between a rock and a hard place, with family’s to support and a mad administration threatening reprisals, may have felt differently. Especially with “legal experts” telling them its okay. Interesting take on that is linked below:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/04/17/why-obama-took-prosescution-of-cia-officers-off-the-table-a-theory/ happened at Abu
Here’s the problem. If Obama and Congress refuse to do anything about these clear violations of US law because he doesn’t want to rile up “CIA operatives, or former members of the Bush administration, or members of Congress who failed in their oversight responsibility, or journalists who failed in their role as government watchdogs,” then what am I supposed to say to the people I am defending in Federal Court against the Justice Department’s efforts to lock them up for long periods of time on claims that they did things less serious, in my opinion, than make the United States officially pursue a policy of committing war crimes: “Sorry, you aren’t important enough to ‘just look forward’, to just reflect upon your deeds but without recrimination?” We have an official two tier justice system: the people “too big to prosecute” and the rest of us. Only Congressional impeachment of Bybee can turn this ship around.
Come on Mike Spindell,
Lets see what you can offer on the McDonalds side.
Dr. Turley, I’ve enjoyed your commentary on Constitutional law on MSNBC. However, on your next appearance, it would be helpful to many of us who enjoy the subject to have Olbermann or Maddow to have a listing of the laws that have been broken, such as those associated with the torture issues, particularly the treaties and US legal code.
Just a thought. Thanks
Mike S.,
The problem with the ideas of the writer in the article is they are factually incorrect. We do have accounts of what happened in the CIA and it isn’t those things.
“Sane case officers at CIA get back the word that OLC says, “All the things you say are illegal are, in fact, legal. And they are the experts in what’s legal and you are not, so up yours, do what you have been ordered to do. Oh, and, by they way, you cannot see the memo, or mention that it even exits. No talking about it among yourselves.”
—————————————————————-
Officers from the highes to the lowest level at the CIA sought advice from independent attorneys and were told what they were being asked to do was illegal. They were told should they proceed they should get everything approved in writing. “Interroators” didn’t make a move without clearance from The Sec. of Defense and above.
“This would leave the sane CIA operative with 2 choices: 1) resign at a moment in history when Our country desperately needed all the intel it could get, thereby depriving our country of the years of training and experience the American people had invested in this agent,…”
———————————————————–
1. at the time it was known by most professional interrogators that torture does not work. So resigning because one didn’t want to torture another person would not have deprived the US of any desperately needed intel.
“The one and only thing that the Shrub administration has consistently excelled at was in framing decisions and limiting access to information in such a way that normal people found themselves in positions where they believed their choice was limited to figuring out which was the lesser of two evils. Remember Addington kept some OLC opinions locked in his own safe, so no one but him could see them.”
—————————————————————-
Immaterial what Addington did. The Geneva conventions are clear. They are taught to CIA case officers. One is supposed to refuse an illegal order.
“Crazy people at the White House got sane people in the agencies to do all kinds of things by isolating them from competent advice, depriving them of necessary and pertinent information, and just plain lying to them. Perhaps that is what happened to the line officers at CIA?”
—————————————————————
Again, not what happened. They had their own attorney’s advice.
“President Obama’s position regarding those line officers, while I disagree with it, may be a reflection that he believes that they were manipulated and lied to by those they had a right to trust.”______________________________________________________________
No, it is public knowledge that “interrogators” had their own legal advice and called the WH or Sec. of Defense before making every move.
The CIA officers were not in the same position as guards at AG. They had a much broader range of options open to them. The circumstances under which they tortured are important in sentencing but not in avoiding prosecution.
Again, I must ask why any democracy would tolerate the employment of a group of people who broke our laws. It is dangerous to leave such a group in place. When we have talked about police who abuse their authority and tase people, we do not say they should keep their job. We know that leaving these people in place makes for a climate of abuse. It isn’t really different with CIA officers. They need to go.
How about Vincent Bugliosi for special prosecutor?
Melvin,
“the people doing the torturing were concerned that they be protected, down the road, from prosecution for their violations of the actual law.
Section 2340A of title 18 of the U.S. Code says this: “Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”
And 2340C adds this for the benefit of the people writing the “legal” permissions to violate it: “A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.”
And what is torture? According to 2340 it is “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.”
And then there is Section 2441, which prescribes a fine or prison or death to any American who commits or conspires to commit a war crime, including torture or cruel or inhuman treatment. This was the section of law that caused then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales to warn Bush and others that they should deny prisoners in Afghanistan the Geneva Conventions as the best defense of their own necks…”
http://www.counterpunch.org/swanson04172009.html
Rafflaw, what I perceive the Obama administration as having committed ‘We the People’ to, if by ‘omission’, is defending CIA operatives, generally, against prosecution for acts committed in the course of their duties – reliably or not so, in defense of the US as proscribed BY LAW, under oath, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution TO THE BEST OF (‘HIS/HER) THEIR ABILITIES…
Obama’s job sucks AND he very much wants to succeed at it on all fronts, anyway. He’s very brave.
If you recall, GW didn’t want the job and displayed his contempt for the rule of law every day…
Whereas, Bill Clinton, his successful predecessor, loved it being President and perceived it as the BEST occupation in the World!
What type should we rather have…?
James McNair Thompson stated:
“That he should escape all punishment for his high crimes, while my clients do not benefit from a benign “let’s look forward, not backward” Justice Department policy, makes an utter mockery of the criminal justice system.”\
__________________
Thank you for that succinct statement that expresses my verbose thoughts regarding this issue. I too reside within a judicial District over which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction; I am therefore directly affected by its rulings that are, in part, rendered by Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee.
Judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals are as human as the any other subset of society; however, given their extensive education, legal knowledge, and the oaths of office pledged, they must be held to high standards of conduct and accountable for any criminal misconduct. This was not simply a misjudgment or error of legal fact, with which we all must, or can—on compassionate grounds recognizing that we all err as humans–overlook with an appropriate admonishment and a possible minor fine. This was a violation of at least one section of a major legal statute with international implications.
War Crimes investigations will lead to Bush’s and Obama’s doors.
Obama has been a War Criminal for years in funding, conspiring and waging Wars of Aggression.
” The problem with the ideas of the writer in the article is they are factually incorrect…
—–
“Like we can rely on you for ‘Facts’…
… Yikes!!! {:o
Parallel to the shore
- SWIM… !!!
Jay Bybee got a lifetime Judge appointment and George Tenat got
the ‘Medal of Freedom’…
What should we suppose is the difference, there.
ya think…???
PattyC,
To answer your question, I would rather have Obama without a doubt over anyone the Republicans could offer. I think we will see some action on the torture enablers, but it will be a slow process. I really want the higher ups anyway, so the operatives can get a pass as long as the attorneys who called this crap a legal memo are not given a pass. And Bush, Cheney and the entire cabal must be investigated. Not only do we need to see the rule of law return, the world needs to see it also.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.
–Thomas Jefferson
Patty C,
Some people prefer the thrill, rush, and excitement of swimming away from the shore into those deep dark, shark-infested waters…one never knows what they might find in Obama’s ‘davy-jones’ locker of political skeletons, doncha know…
As you know, mespo, I think TJ was very ‘New Age’ for his time.
I love it when ‘karma’ comes back around in the Universe and I can say’ – Couldn’t have happened to a nicer Guy/Gal…
FFLEO,
‘Parallel to the shore’ is in reference to sound guidance to circumnavigation of ‘Undertow’ at beaches so as to avoid being potentially swept out to sea, while simultaneously being pulled under by the action of waves.
If you try ONLY to fight against the pull away from shore, you will eventually tire and drown.
The way out is to swim across the pull, ‘parallel to the shore’,
into an area where the Undertow is either not present or very minimal.
Please explain how Holder gets to choose who he prosecutes when
there is clearly, documented evidence that Bush and his cabinet,
in addition to the Justice Dept. approved torture.
Is there any sort of law suit an individual can bring to force them to file charges?
Pissed off doesn’t even begin to cover how I am feeling right now.
“Please explain how Holder gets to choose who he prosecutes when
there is clearly, documented evidence that Bush and his cabinet,
in addition to the Justice Dept. approved torture.
Is there any sort of law suit an individual can bring to force them to file charges?…”
—
That there is ‘clearly documented evidence’ is queationable from a legal standpoint. That is the problem in a nutshell, I believe.
I think I know what happened OR what would have likelyoccurred under several possible scenarios. The question is, could I PROVE any of them it in a Court of Law?
Unfortunately, I’m not sure…
Not all cracked up like you thought it was going to be, is it?
I’ll repeat my comment on a similar post. It is not written in law and is not opinion and therefore not theory.
It is the duty of the President to protect the oval office and all of it’s past officers. Pardon me for my lack of history knowledge.
bdaman,
Once again you are incorrect. The President does not have any duty to protect the oval office. He/she has a duty to protect the country and a duty to preserve and protect the Constitution.
bdman,
Your ignorance is once again astounding.
This, and ONLY this, defines the President’s job
U.S. Constitution
Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
______
Pay particular attention to that last part, W. Apologist.
Buddha,
Well said. George W. should have been impeached while he was in office, but I would be satisfied with with a conviction for ordering a war crime.
Excerpt from:
“Will They Be Prosecuted?”
by Scott Horton
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-17/will-they-be-prosecuted/
“Within a period of only a few hours, however, Judge Garzón issued an opinion on the matter. He rejected the application for a transfer to Judge Moreno saying he disagreed with the prosecutors’ analysis and felt the case should remain in his hands. However, recognizing the prosecutors’ objection, Garzón referred the case to the chief judge of the Audiencia Nacional’s penal chamber to make the final call as to whom the case should be referred. The case of the Bush Six is therefore now back in the court’s assignment system.
Lawyers familiar with Audiencia Nacional practices advise me that the chief judge usually decides questions about the referral of cases extremely quickly, in a matter of only a few days. If that holds in this case, then next week we should learn the identity of the judge who will decide whether the Bush Six case will move into the next phase of criminal investigation, or will be dropped.”
George Bush was not impeached because the Congress was and is corrupt and complicit in War Crimes.
Buddha, I said it was not written in law and then you want to direct me to Article II Section I(Alot of debate here) of a document that use to mean everything and in the eyes of some mean nothing now. Read Article II Section I over and over then ask JT to explain how there are two classes on how it’s understood.
Regardless of my ignorance, my lack of scruples or any other defaming thoughts you or anyone else may have of me, the CIA officers or anyone following orders or directives from the oval office of the Bush presidency will not be prosecuted under THIS administration. This leaves Bush and Cheney as the two whom most want to see justice carried out.
Lets daydream a bit shall we. Lets say the two were prosecuted and found guilty in the court of U.S. law. Do you honestly believe that any sitting president would allow a previous one to go to prison. They belong to the same club and are members for life.
GW Sr. allowed TONS and TONS of coke to be imported to the U.S. Where did it arrive first before distribution? Arkansas and Louisiana, all to fund a policy of the U.S.
Where in the constitution does it say the president can do that?
What happened?
Oliver North was the fall guy but he’s fine now, normal life and is just a regular Ol Joe. Who went to jail for possession with intent to sell? Certainly not GW Sr.
Bill Clinton covered for GW Sr., GW Jr. covered for Clinton and now Obummer is covering for GW Jr.
On a final note if your wondering where Cheney fits in, Cheney was covering for O when, by law, from the same document you directed me to, failed to call for any objections in confirming the electoral college votes.
Lets just say this presidency was no doubt, a shot gun wedding!!!
The constitution gave( past tense) power to WE THE PEOPLE, when you can show me that the elected 500 plus in D.C. represent WE THE PEOPLE, I’ll start rolling over in my grave.
P.S. Notice how I commented without name calling
bdman,
After the quality of your repeated posts, what makes you think I care what you think?
Robert Perry’s piece should be required reading for anyone thinking Geo. Bush was anything but a contemptible charlatan masquerading as a President, while all the time believing himself above any law.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/041709.html
mespo,
Thanks for the link. I’ll be checking that site again.
Bdaman,
Do you actually believe the nonsense that you write? Your alleged reasoning is so ridiculous that you somehow reach the incredible result that Cheney and Bush are the ones who want justice carried out. Read Obama’s statements. The CIA operatives who carried out the torture orders will not be prosecuted if they relied on the legal memos of the OLC. This does not prevent justice from being carried out against the higher-ups in the CIA and in Bush regime.
The “clearly criminal warrantless surveillance program” goes way beyond anything that most can imagine, in my opinion, based on events that I have witnessed. I hope and pray that Thomas Tamm is joined by others to expose the full extent of “the program” that is still in force, it would appear.
As Tamm said, when accepting the Ridenhour Prize, “We are safer and more secure when we support the rule of law,” he said. “We need to hold our domestic enemies accountable. We still don’t know the truth about what was done in our name — how many wiretapped, how many tortured. We can handle the truth. Bring it on.”
Please. “Bring it on.” The “clearly criminal warrantless surveillance program is still in full-swing, it would seem.
“Interesting take on that is linked below:”
Jill,
That is how I introduced the link. “Interesting Take” does not an endorsement make. As a matter of fact the articles author makes sure to make clear that he is only theorizing. Your refutations of the various points may, or not be correct in themselves, since there is no citations where they came from, or whether or not they represent someone else’s opinion.
The point I was making in the body of the comment was that I would prefer to see the perpetrators of the orders prosecuted, rather than those that carried them out. I hold no brief for those who went to jail over Abu Gharaib, what they did was heinous. However, escaping justice were their direct superiors and the Bush administration people who ordered it. My desire is that this doesn’t get entangled for years in trying the small fry, while the really evil people get away with literally murder and torture.
I think that this is where Obama is going and I’ve laid out why in many comments on this thread and elsewhere. As to the argument that could be made as to why these low level people are keeping their jobs, I wouldn’t bet on it. Their career potential has already been stunted and in government service retribution can take many forms. FFLEO and I, as government workers would never have done these things despite whose orders. I can’t talk for him, but I’d be a lot more comfortable in my old age had I been willing to do things against my conscience. The truth is we were probably both unusual and I don’t say that as a put down of fellow workers. Most people, wherever they work, have families, mortgages, etc. and find themselves in the position of following orders, or doing the right thing. With this past administration of scary fascists I would imagine it would take a strong person to hold out against threats and the potential of being blackballed. Many were strong enough, but just as many weren’t.
Now you might cite Nuremberg for me and the dictum not to follow illegal orders, which had many lower level people punished. As a Jew, who believe me takes the Shoah quite seriously and will never visit Germany, I’ve always been uncomfortable with the holier than thou attitude in those trials. While I’m a non-violent person I know that I could have personally murdered many Nazi’s with no compunction. However, given the absolutely murderous nature of the Nazi regime (we must admit that Bush/Cheney were pikers in comparison)I’ve always felt a sense that faced with one’s own, or one’s family’s death for not following orders, people of lesser courage would comply.
In that sense I think Nuremberg’s dicta was a little overblown. Considering acts like the Firebombing of Dresden, the allies also lacked some ethical constraints. I had an English Teacher, ex Marine, who gleefully detailed napalming Japanese soldiers trapped in caves. Let he who is without sin…..etc. While we know that the whole “War on Terror” meme was nonsense, many people actually fell for the rhetoric and saw us at war with an implacable foe. Being “At War” releases some people’s restraints (some might say inner demons) and they willingly go overboard. The criminals who caused this: Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Neo Con aides and the DOJ foils are the ones I want to see brought down. The tools who believed their rhetoric are just that “tools” and while I’ve no desire to see them prosper, they are rather pathetic as human beings.
The essence of America’s need regarding torture is that those high up in the Bush/Cheney Cabal be punished for their crimes and have that punishment serve as a reminder to future administrations that they won’t be able to get away with it. Three months into the current Administration I see nothing to convince me this won’t happen. If you feel you must refute me please let’s not get into a battle of citations, because as you know I can match you citation for citation and then it becomes whose citation do you believe?
While President Obama has promised transparency in his administration, no administration can be totally transparent when it comes to strategic maneuvering. You see these statements as proving that he’s going to let the bad guys get away with their crimes, I see it as maneuvers to allow the prosecutions to come, without being seen as directly responsible for them. history will be the only judge of who sees it more clearly.
Mike,
Did you know Curtis LeMay was concerned that had the Allies lost WWII they would be held accountable for war crimes related to Dresden?
Mike Spindell stated:
“FFLEO and I, as government workers would never have done these things despite whose orders. I can’t talk for him, but I’d be a lot more comfortable in my old age had I been willing to do things against my conscience. The truth is we were probably both unusual and I don’t say that as a put down of fellow workers. Most people, wherever they work, have families, mortgages, etc. and find themselves in the position of following orders, or doing the right thing.”
_________________________
Yes Mike, and only the best civil servants who have been down that long, hard road can fully appreciate what you stated…
Rafflaw, Read Obama’s statement, ah yes, so good to read them and to have him read from the Tele P only then to see him do the opposite of what he said he would do. Politics at it’s finest.
Just sayin
Let me ask you this, if President Barack Obama fails to pursue an independent investigation on Bush, Cheney or anyone else connected to the illegal torture program, will you be sorry you voted for him? I understand the choice of mail order brides were not very good this go round but does the torture thing just really get up under your finger nail like a sharp bamboo shoot.
I remember Buddah being a fat n happy kinda a guy, didn’t realize he was so angry. Maybe he got that way when the Taliban destroyed him.
FFLEO,
I knew we’d both been on that road, albeit in different venues. Bureaucracies are bureaucracies though and all are all too similar. Part of the experience, as you’re well aware, is the point where a particular Boss puts you in a choice situation to test your loyalty to him/her and not the mission. I’ve always chosen the mission and often to my self and my family’s detriment. You’ve no doubt been there. My guess is that we survived and prospered, though not as much as we could have, because we worked harder than those around us. With it in the past now I can feel pride in myself for doing the right thing and I bet you feel the same. In the end it’s not about God’s Grace, the toys you own, or the fame you’ve achieved. It is all about doing the right thing, at the right time and the personal satisfaction of remaining true to yourself.
Buddha,
I vaguely remember the LeMay fears. Considering the man it says a lot, because he was a nuclear hawk. I understand the need we had for the Nuremberg Trials and they were definitely needed. However, each war breeds brutality on each side, which is why it is called Hell. Victory in war too often breeds smugness and denial. There may indeed be just wars, WWII, but no war can ever truly bring justice.
bdaman,
You are showing your true colors when you discuss that important issue of using a “teleprompter”. Where were you when George W. Bush lied us into a war in Iraq? Where were you when Bush ordered the illegal wiretapping of Americans? Where were you and your neocon wannabees when George W. Bush actually left his vacation to sign a bill to overturn a husband’s right, pursuant to a valid POA to decide the fate of his brain dead wife in Florida? If you had been listening, you would know that I have stated that it was a mistake to not go after the torture authorizers from day one. However, you may be sorry to hear that the torture issue is very important to me, but it is not the only issue that earned my vote for Obama. And you talk about teleprompters.
Buddha and Mike,
There was good reason for the Allies to be concerned about the Dresden issue as it was a horrific attack on the citizens of the city without concern about military targets.
Rafflaw I’m right here with you watching the same policy of the last eight years.
Where were you when George W. Bush lied us into a war in Iraq? Watching it on TV just like you.
Where were you when Bush ordered the illegal wiretapping of Americans? Still right here, watching DHS release a Right Wing Extermist report that was gathered by intercepting e-mails, monitoring comments and chat rooms ect.ect. At least we know the CIA and DHS are working together.
Where were you and your neocon wannabees when George W. Bush actually left his vacation to sign a bill to overturn a husband’s right, pursuant to a valid POA to decide the fate of his brain dead wife in Florida? Same place you are with my right to life. If I was a parent I wouldn’t want the spouse of my child making those choices just because of marriage.
By exclusive use of the prompter he in fact is reading a statement so this is what you ask me to do was to read his statements. Are theses statements his or is he just reading them to me?
“let me ask you this, if President Barack Obama fails to pursue an independent investigation on Bush, Cheney or anyone else connected to the illegal torture program, will you be sorry you voted for him?”
Not in the slightest. There was no one running in the Republican party that had any ethical standards or regard for the people, except the wealthiest. That party also has no one with any intelligence in a leadership position. The other choice Ralph Nader has become a doddering egotist and couldn’t have performed, if elected. I am quite happy with President Obama’s performance and I find the teleprompter criticism hilarious, given the morons fronting the GOP. The President has done very well thus far and I believe these prosecutions will come and will convict. However, even if they don’t we at least have a President who gives more than lip service to the needs of the people.
“If I was a parent I wouldn’t want the spouse of my child making those choices just because of marriage.”
How nice that someone who isn’t a parent of a married child, or any child for that matter, feels competent to discourse on matters he can’t possibly understand. Why that sort of sounds like….someone who would think highly of George Bush. What a typical remark from someone who knows they’ve got no valid argument in the Schiavo case, but is willing to defend it anyway. The other ripostes in the reply to Rafflaw were on the same less than mediocre level. We’ve got ourselves a troll here looking to “stir up them libruls.” He thinks that making stupid comments is going to get the “libruls” blood pressure rising and believes he is having fun.
He probably is since he’s got nothing else going for him in his life except a propensity to follow the authoritarian leader and doing a good goose step. In case this less than inquiring mind actually does inquire, yes I am calling names and going ad hominem on him. Polite stupidity by him in defense of the indefensible is no virtue and deserves no reward of civility.
Mike,
I think you are right. bdaman is merely a troll in neocon disguise. He tries to claime that the DHS report was ordered by Obama and not during the Bush years. It would be nice if these trolls would at least look at the facts. However, facts don’t mean much to Republicans and trolls. bdaman, I was on sites like this and my own site arguing for the impeachment One more thing. What is this crap about the teleprompter? Do they think that Republicans don’t use them? Does he think that McCain or Bush could do without there teleprompters? We have an entire Republican administration that is guilty of war crimes and the trolls bring up teleprompters? I guess it is the wizard behind the curtain defense. Go Bulls!
You guys are stuck in your troll fantasy land. I stumbled upon this blog by watching JT on Olberman. Although no fan of Olberman, while swithcing thru the channels I stopped and listened. I was shocked to here what he had to say. Like a good troll, I’ll go troll somewhere else, sorry, I didn’t see the no trolling sign. Just remember I got my eye on you and thanks for all of your wonderful insights.
Excerpt:
Interview with Amy Goodman and Scott Horton on Middle East Online:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=31578
AMY GOODMAN: We just got this report from Spain, Scott Horton. Spanish prosecutors have “formally recommended against an investigation into allegations that six senior Bush administration officials gave legal cover for the torture of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay. While their ruling is not binding, the announcement all but dooms prospects for the case against the men going forward.” That, a report from the Associated Press. Scott Horton, can you explain what you understand at this point?
SCOTT HORTON: Well, the Associated Press is giving you extremely faulty legal analysis, because a decision as to whether the case will go forward rests entirely with the investigating judge. The Spanish system is not like the American system, where prosecutors decide who and when to bring cases and who to prosecute. In the Spanish system, the prosecution is managed by an investigating judge. In this case, it’s Baltasar Garzon. And you may recall, he handled the case involving Augusto Pinochet, and he did that against the stern opposition of Spanish prosecutors, I think which shows you the weight that that recommendation may hold with him in his court.
But there’s a different consideration to weigh in here, as well, and that is that this is a statement that was announced by the prosecutors at the Audencia Nacional in Madrid, and we know, in fact, that those prosecutors who have made this recommendation not to go forward in fact concluded that the case should be prosecuted. They prepared a thirty-seven-page memorandum—and I’ve discussed, I’ve talked with several people in Madrid who have read it—that laid out the case, showed how it could fairly easily be brought, how it involved a joint criminal enterprise, how it could be sustained on the basis of documents, including some of those that were released yesterday. And that decision by the career prosecutors was overridden in a political act by Spain’s attorney general, who’s a political figure. He was a member of the cabinet of Prime Minister Jose Zapatero.
Moreover, the attorney general’s decision, which was announced yesterday morning in Madrid, came after several days of high-level discussions between Washington and the Zapatero government, during the course of which, I’ve been told, the Obama administration suggested very strongly that the pendency of this case was inconvenient and that it would be viewed as a great favor by Washington if Zapatero’s government could do what was within its power to shut this down. And I think what we see here is an accommodating nod from Jose Zapatero.
So it has really nothing to do with justice, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the case. It’s a political act. And it’s certain to be understood by the judges of the Audencia Nacional as a political act, which means I don’t think it really forms much of a barrier to the prosecution going forward.
Impeaching Bybee is a start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19sun1.html?_r=2
Will litigants who were judged by Bybee be able to appeal his rulings due to these memos? Have any done so, yet?
Bybee can’t be impeached soon enough for my liking. Anyone who would write those memos and call it a legal memo needs to be in a different line of work.
Take a look at this Bushit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090422/ap_on_go_co/us_interrogation_memos_senate