That was a very interesting article FFLEO.

Insiders say Atty. Gen. Eric Holder is close to naming a prosecutor to look into reports of excessive waterboarding and other unauthorized methods. Convictions could be hard to get.
_________________________________

“Al Jazeera Journalist Imprisoned & Tortured at Gitmo to Sue Bush

The action may be brought in Europe using the Pinochet strategy.

By Jeremy Scahill

Sami al-Haj, the al Jazeera journalist who spent seven years at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo is preparing to file a lawsuit against former president George W Bush and other top Bush administration officials. al-Haj was repeatedly interrogated by U.S. operatives attempting to falsely link al Jazeera to al Qaeda. al-Haj was also tortured. From The Guardian:”

http://rebelreports.com/

“By Jeremy Scahill

The House Intelligence Committee has just announced that it is launching an official probe into the alleged concealment by former vice president Dick Cheney of a C.I.A. assassination program. Senior Obama officials may think it was perfectly legal, but House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Sylvestre Reyes doesn’t seem to agree (H/T Greg Sargent):”

http://rebelreports.com/

“Al-Jazeera Reporter Imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay to Sue George Bush
Sami al-Haj – freed in May 2008 after more than six years – to launch legal action against former US president

by Gwladys Fouché in Oslo

An al-Jazeera reporter who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay plans to launch a joint legal action with other detainees against former US president George Bush and other administration officials, for the illegal detention and torture he and others suffered at the hands of US authorities.

The case will be initiated by the Guantánamo Justice Centre, a new organisation open to former prisoners at the US base, which will set up its international headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, later this month.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/17-1

George repeated Jill’s quotes and I’ll post them yet again, because she couldn’t be more right.

“It scares me that so few people seem to grasp how dangerous this situation truly is.”

“A clear eyed view of history will show the disaster that lies before us.”

~ Jill

If you prosecute us we will blow the whistle on your being an illegal alien.

“A clear eyed view of history will show the disaster that lies before us.”

~ Jill

—

Amen.

I agree. The ruling class has set themselves above the law. This includes financial as well as war crimes. Glenn Greenwald lay bare part of the story of the financial crimes. JT laid bare the consequences for failure to hold high level officals to account for war crimes.

It scares me that so few people seem to grasp how dangerous this situation truly is. When you have an economic and political elite who feels entitled to do anything, that’s exactly what they will do–anything. The massive suffering that has already resulted to our people and to people from other nations at the hands of a lawless elite is staggering. I’m not clear how people believe a country functions well under a lawless administration/ruling elite. A clear eyed view of history will show the disaster that lies before us. People in power understand one thing–greater power. Once that threat is removed, they will in fact do just as we see–anything. If any citizen thinks this will keep them safe they are not paying attention.

Obama’s moral underpinnings have always been suspect. His oft stated belief that “policy disagreements” should not be criminalized clearly shows his lack of moral understanding about what took place. It is not a mere policy difference to decide to torture human beings or commit other war crimes. Only in the perverse atmosphere of Washington could such amorality pass as acceptable. The shocking lack of disgust and horror over serious war crimes is an outgrowth of the now acceptable imperial mindset of Washington and Obama, as Emperor, is blinded to just how unacceptable that is in a republic like ours used to be and which he so disingenuously promised to restore by bringing back transparency, accountability and the rule of law to the executive branch.

Prosecution if not legally or moarlly optional. We are talking about torture and murder. Holder has said, on tape, that if murder resulted from torture it would be a crime. God knows why someone has to die before he thinks torture is a crime, but we already have stacks of evidence showing murder as the result of torture. I think this excerpt from Ben Davis, a law professor makes the issue quite clear:

“I know it is hard for some to imagine elite members of government being tried in a public court in this country. But that is precisely what we need to get to in order to 1) have the full public record under oath and 2) have an American jury of peers under the law convict or acquit.

The Spanish moved ahead with criminal investigation of six of the former high-level lawyers who authored the “torture memos.” The Spanish court has written to Mr. Obama asking whether the United States intends to prosecute. The United States has an obligation to investigate and prosecute under the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, but it will not do so unless Americans insist that our leaders do the right thing.

We should not continue to dither about criminal prosecution of the high-level civilians and generals. After all, we have prosecuted the uniformed soldiers who did their bidding. It is not a question of whether to prosecute, it is a question of how high up we wish to go.”

Eric and Danny I agree with you both.

A.Y.–the overlord commands that one partake of his bounty!

However, President Obama is very frugal with his political capital, and appears afraid of failing to make good on program changes we can believe in. Unlike Jill, I believe many Americans, of every political stripe, are so confused by the last eight years of distortion that they no longer see a requirement for our political leaders to adhere to the rule of law, and hold others to account when they break with the requirements of our Constitution. For our representative democracy to function properly, we must have informed citizens, who hold our leaders to political account for their actions. It is not good enough to follow them blindly, like sports heroes or celebrities.

Prosecutorial discretion is by no means absolute. The office of the Attorney General cannot exercise a (discretionary) power greater than the power of the document (i.e. the Constitution) to which it owes its existence.

“we have never suggested that the President, or any other official, has an immunity that extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity.” Clinton v. Jones?

And what would John Marshall say?

“[An Attorney General??] has no more right to decline the exercise of [power] which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution???” ( Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 264, 404)

After all Mespo, under Article IV, we New Yorkers are guaranteed a republican form of government; aren’t we?

love you on olbermann and rachel maddow, among others.

isn’t it time to take to the streets. how about a million man march, for holder to hire a real special prosecutor, to go where the evidence takes him ,not limited by his administration? i’m serious.
i went to washington with the aclu on habeus corpus a couple of years ago. barney frank (my congressman didn’t giver us a sniff), ted kennedy’s office was excellent, and kerry, ho hum. the point is we had a about 3-5,000 from around the country and got no respect.
let the aclu take the lead or some other organization. let’s line up the buses, and go from all over the country to change this. let’s figure out a way to get the “mainstream media” to cover this with some respect and honesty. let’s get comments not from the pundits, but from the sneators and congrees people. let’s get them on the record.

just a thought, when congress comes back from break, lets raise some peaceful hell.

dannyfitz,
boston

ps. if you watched moyers friday, we need to do the same for health care, or more bandaids, no single payer, no govt option.

come on lets organize – let’s get their attention, let’s expose the links betw lobbyists, former members of congress, and the corporate world, every time we can make a connection.

lottakatz,

There are four main food groups. They have an overlord. His name is Junk Food. That’s all you need to know.
*********************************

While I agree and do not pay homage to the Dark Over Lords Offerings too often. Does Ice Cream get special dispensation? As it is a Dairy product with all sorts of inert goods. Even homemade has a certain amount of bad stuff in it. But it is still good. I have been on the Banana Split craze by Blue Bell. Still 1/2 gallon and can usually purchase it for 3 for 10. I am gaining an affection for the Triple Chocolate coated Almond Fudge. But one that had my attention was Grooms Cake,(Groom’s Cake Ice Cream is a luscious chocolate ice cream with chocolate cake pieces and chocolate coated strawberry hearts, surrounded by swirls of strawberry sauce and chocolate icing.) Sorry it was gone in about an hour. Yes, a half gallon.

“Holder is a coward, traitor and criminal.”

**********

You are fast becoming one of those ubiquitous idiots I see traipsing around town in shabby attire, thumping Holy Books and, with deep sonorous voices, assuring me that the end is near and I need to repent. I pay little attention to them either except to wonder why the believe unjustified adamance is equal to reasonable persuasion.

“Our law says he and the AG must prosecute war crimes.”

********

Not so; our law is not that simple. Prosecutors have wide discretion in the timing, means, and methods used by them to enforce the law. That is why at Nuremberg not every Nazi was prosecuted, and why every mobster is not immediately arrested for crimes committed. When you elect persons to public office they owe you “not [their] industry only, but [their] judgment; and [they] betray, instead of serving you, if[they] sacrifice it to your opinion,” as Edmund Burke famously said.* Prosecutorial discretion is specifically recognized by the Statute of Rome which set the guidelines for the International Criminal Court, and is firmly ensconced in our common law.

Burke’s words are likewise relevant on the role of our elected officials:

“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living.

…

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,–these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.”*

*Edmund Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol
3 Nov. 1774

The president has access to classified information that we do not have. That does not relieve him of his oath of office, nor does it relieve Holder from his oath. War crimes have clearly been committed. We are a nation of law not a nation run by a “commander on the ground”. Our law says he and the AG must prosecute war crimes. Obama may make avilable his classified information in a court of law, but if our Constitution means anything, he may not act above the law.

“I agree but, as they say, he is the “commander on the ground,” and he may see things we cannot.”

Chances are, however, that he sees the opportunity to politicize crime as less hampering to carrying out his agenda.

Why can’t Obama simply stand by the “because it’s the law ma’am” argument?

Positivism does have some virtues; don’t you know.”

************

I agree but, as they say, he is the “commander on the ground,” and he may see things we cannot.

“All of the evidence publicly available raises significant questions as to whether the Bush Administration or interrogators violated the law regarding the authorization and use of interrogation techniques. Such techniques such as excessive waterboarding and extreme physical brutality likely violated existing American law and international treaties against torture and led to the death of prisoners held in US custody.

The Attorney General testified in the Judiciary Committee recently: “If somebody was tortured to death, clearly a crime would have occurred.”

There are those who fear that an investigation will distract and divide us at a time when we need to focus on very pressing issues such as health care, the economy, and foreign policy. The truth is that we can and must do both. Just as we must repair our health care and economic system, we must also repair of system of justice.

The appointment of a Special Prosecutor has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence that supports them.

In fact, by appointing a Special Prosecutor – the Department of Justice separates itself from the investigation, allowing the evidence to be considered totally independent of political or institutional influences.

I refuse to believe that many Americans, regardless of their political leanings, would want any President, Vice President, or Cabinet official to exist above the law. That is not democracy.

Should we fail to investigate alleged abuses of power – even at this late date – we concede our rights and set dangerous precedents for the future.

Enforcement of our laws preserves the balance of power – not simply between branches of government – but between citizens and their elected leaders.”

You’ll get a laugh from this. It’s old also, a response to David Corn. submitted by Bob Fertik on April 27, 2009 – 10:46am. I don’t know if David Corn has changed his mind since this time:

“My esteemed friend David Corn analyzes “The Problem with a Special Prosecutor,” …

Here is “The Problem with David Corn.”

The groups calling for a Special Prosecutor did not put “exposing wrongdoing” at the top of our to-do list. We put criminal accountability – a criminal investigation followed by prosecution if warranted – at the top of our list. Why?

First, a crime was committed. In fact they were war crimes. Three prisoners were waterboarded and waterboarding is torture (to everyone but the Busheviks). The Convention Against Torture requires the U.S. to prosecute torture. So calling for a Special Prosecutor is simply complying with our treaty obligations. Peggy Noonan’s alternative – “keep on walking” – is itself illegal, and by failing to prosecute, President Obama could be charged with obstruction of justice…”

http://www.democrats.com/the-problem-with-david-corn

“The Problem With a Special Prosecutor”

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/no-special-prosecutor-torture

This is not new,but I think it makes the point.

Why can’t Obama simply stand by the “because it’s the law ma’am” argument?

Positivism does have some virtues; don’t you know.

What are you pointing to specifically in the vid you posted?

In my opinion, this is the most pivitoal moment in American history. In the next 24 months, the fate of our nation will be decided. If Bush and Cheney are not investigated and tried for their alleged crimes, then the rule of law will begin to decline as a value in the minds of the public at large. This, I believe, will correspond in a decline of the United States in terms of global influence both politically and economically (which is, sadly, already underway). This decline will only be bolstered by the role our banks and government played in the financial crisis, and the painful burn most Americans are still feeling from the foreclosures and medical bankrupticies.

Furthermore, and this I find personally most troublesome, the greatness of our Constitution, as presented to students in schools across this country, is being shown, in the most public of ways, to be a lie. If students cannot trust the information their teacher is telling them, what does that say about the future of primary and secondary education in this country? Ugh.

And how will the Constitution be viewed in another 200 years? Just a philosophical idea some folks had about forming “a more perfect union?” Maybe President Bush was a visionary when he referred to it as, “just a goddamned piece of paper!”

The Constitution was written to protect the citizenry from the tyranny of the state. Now, seemingly, it is used at will to protect the state at the expense of the citizenry. Ironic.

Is time for happy hour yet?

posting from: http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/10/reports-shows-additional-undisclosed-surveillance-programs-and-likely-unlawful-conduct-by-bush-administration/#comment-67223

Patty C 1, July 13, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Can somebody ’splain this to me. I’m a Democrat and I’d love to indict Bush. Why did JT say that “no Democrat wants to indict him [Bush]“?

–
I trust he meant Dems in Congress, because he certainly wasn’t speaking for me on that score, either.

There are still things coming out that we didn’t know before. If Holder is feeling a need to control it, perhaps he’s doing so, now, before he commences it.

Too many years of heartbreak have gone by for it to turn out any other way but well. Not if I have anything to say about it.

I don’t have to have it fast. I want it right.

Obama is fighting the release of the IG report. He claims releasing it will damage “national security”. He also has made it clear may times that he does not want to prosecute (in those exact words). He would like to “look forward” (which as we are still torturing, means, not looking at the past or the present). If fighting the release of information on multiple fronts and continuing to torture are Obama’s way of getting the public on board for prosecutions, his is a unique strategy. This strategy is awfully cruel as it requires others to keep on being harmed until he can “get the public on board”. Even more oddly, much of the public is already on board with the prosecutions.

“Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union have just been notified that there will be a hearing on Wednesday morning in the group’s lawsuit to have a much-anticipated 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report on “enhanced interrogation” publicly released. The report is believed to contain some key information on the nature of what others call the “Bush torture program.” The Obama White House has been fighting to have the report suppressed with CIA Director Leon Panetta telling federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein in June that the release of the report would result in “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” At present, the Obama administration has stalled the release until August 31, a delay the ACLU is protesting….”

http://rebelreports.com/

“The struggle against Islamic-based terrorism will be not simply a military campaign but a battle for public opinion in the Islamic world, among our allies & in the US.”

I have no reason to doubt that this is his approach to handling a particularly difficult international problem with serious implications for his Presidency and the world, if he fails or looks reckelss or jingoistic in the process of winning. If we extrapolate to his equally thorny domestic problem of prosecuting the Bush excesses without appearing partisan or petty, shouldn’t we expect the same approach? Are these damning reports from the Inspectors’ General and DOJ and other government sources merely random or part of a wider effort to enlist public sentiment to indict an Administration that the public elected to office knowing full well many of its flaws in 2004? I do not believe that Obama et courtiers didn’t foresee this issue of past governmental wrongdoing on the horizon, and I do not believe in coincidences.

“Ratner (CCR) says that if Holder only allows a narrowly-focused investigation based on adherence to the torture memos, the Obama Administration is “essentially saying that the entire torture program was OK and people have a legal defense to it:”

It is in essence accepting the legal defense that was engineered for exactly that purpose to give people a golden shield and only go after people who go beyond it. It’s like saying, ‘You can torture someone by bending their arm behind their back until it breaks only one bone, but not if it breaks two bones. If it breaks two bones, I’m gonna go after you. If you cut off one testicle, I’m not going to go after you, but if you cut off two, I will. If you waterboard someone 150 times, I’m going to go after you, but not if you do it 83 times.’ It’s a line in the sand, it’s ridiculous. It’s malleable, it’s terrible.

It’s not that I think going after these guys for going beyond the legal memos is so bad, but if its leaving intact the structure of the torture program, then it’s basically not worth much.

Jaffer (ACLU) echoed Ratner’s comments:

We have no problem obviously with investigating and prosecuting interrogators that use torture whether they exceeded guidance or not. But, you have to look at the guidance itself. The memos themselves came from the most senior attorneys in the Justice Department and the authorization for the torture program came from the most senior officials in the Bush administration. To pretend that this is a problem that began and ended with the interrogators who exceeded authority, I think, is indefensible given the evidence that’s already in the public domain.”

http://rebelreports.com/

The information about the moles is well known. I would be shocked and appalled if Holder was ignorant of it. When Bush came in Cheney orderd many people fired, replacing them with lackies. Who was hired is information that research assistants could quickly find out. Just as Cheney replaced people, so could Obama or Holder. That argument just doesn’t fly. Further, I was shocked that the idea of “deadenders” was used to explain away the Jeppensen case. The court asked the Obama DOJ to certify the arguments as there own, because the court had been suprised that Obama was arguing the same postitions as Bush. The Obama DOJ certified they had reviewd the case at the highest level and this was their legal position.

Cheneybush never had any problem firing people who wouldn’t do what they wanted. Even Hillary Clinton came into the State dept. and told certain people to clean out their desks by the end of the day. If Cheney and Clinton can do it, I can’t believe someone as competent as Obama and Holder are not competent in the same way.

“Bob, Esq., your reference to utilizing a writ of mandamus to compel prosecution is an interesting suggestion, but I’ve always thought that mandamus is unavailable in situations involving a discretionary element. Are you aware of any situations in which it has been used against a prosecutor?”

No, but there’s an ontological element here that cannot be ignored; as brought up here…

Gary T 1, July 13, 2009 at 2:34 pm

“Mandamus could work, if there is a non-discretionary element to it, and it appears there may be here.”

Exactly, and the question becomes:

How does the office of Attorney General (state of federal) exercise a greater (i.e. discretionary) power than the Constitution to which it owes its existence?

Mike Appleton,

To be clear, a writ of mandamus based upon the New York Constitution obligations of the NYS A.G. might be more powerful; if only in keeping the issues outside the debate of politicizing crime.

Mandamus could work, if there is a non-discretionary element to it, and it appears there may be here.
Aren’t the obligations to prosecute required by law?
If so, then a Writ of Mandamus might be legal and might work.

Jill,
You’re good at doing your research, hunt out the stories at the change of administrations about Bush planting many “moles” in civil service positions to make it hard for them to be fired. As someone who in his early career was a Union Official in a Civil Service Union, I can attest to the fact that the process of firing someone with Civil Service Status is long and hard. I saved many an undeserving worker’s job by simply exhausting the process. In later years as an executive whose specialty was “turning around” moribund Agencies and Offices, when I ran into people who needed firing, it was frankly easier to transfer them out than fire them, though I did fire a few really deserving cases of bad and prejudiced workers and Managers. The process typically took 6 months to a year.

Perhaps FFLEO, who has Federal Government experience might comment on this regarding the difficulty of firing miscreant employees who have committed no crime in doing their work.

Beyond the “secret CIA plan” Cheney covered up (plan to nail terrorists based on 2001 Presidential finding), other questions have arisen

Some argue the secrecy “could be illegal.” Obama’s asking for review of prisoners in Afghanistan who were killed by locals allied w/U.S.

AG Holder also wants to know whether prisoners in GWOT (global war on terror) were tortured. He could assign a special prosecutor

Also: Friday’s inspectors general report revealed additional NSA domestic eavesdropping – programs that were undisclosed under Bush admin.

Obama’s problem: he’d prefer to avoid these distractions and focus on his domestic agenda: fixing the economy, health care, energy

All of these issues, and potential investigations, threaten to undermine the bipartisanship the President would prefer to have.

…and a little later from The Onion

Disillusioned FBI Launches Nationwide Hunt For Some Kind Of Truth http://bit.ly/iZBOl

Jonolan, most of the objections I have heard to investigation of Bush torture policies have incorporated the phrase “witch-hunt.” The problem with that position is that it assumes that there are insufficient facts to even warrant an investigation, an assumption which I believe is amply contradicted in this instance.