Nadler Denounces Obama’s Failure to Prosecute Bush Officials For Torture

In an interview with Raw Story, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) denounced President Barack Obama for blocking any investigation or prosecution of torture under the Bush Administration as inviting ‘tyranny.”

Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. correctly said that the Obama Administration had endangered the very premise of the “supremacy of laws” in its refusal to prosecute Bush officials.

The Obama Administration could not risk a full investigation because the evidence of torture would likely have resulted in indictments of former officials, including President George Bush and Dick Cheney. Instead, President Obama decided to ignore our clear international obligations to investigate and prosecute torture — which allowed Bush officials to go public with boasts of how they waterboarded suspects and would do it again.

Source: Rawstory

162 thoughts on “Nadler Denounces Obama’s Failure to Prosecute Bush Officials For Torture

  1. I am always so heartened when someone speaks up like this. It defies imagination that there was never any groundswell of anger from the public sufficient to move this mountain. And I feel like the same thing is going on with Rush Limbaugh’s outrageously harmful and dangerous race-baiting.

    So as soon as Steinbrenner passes away, all that Limbaugh draws from this is that this guy made a lot of black baseball players wealthy? How many times can I throw up after hearing this before I start throwing my actual guts up? This kind of talk should make all non-bigoted Americans to demonstrate outside his employer’s corporate office PERMANENTLY until Limbaugh is removed from the public airwaves.

  2. Not only on this issue,but to me the administration seems to be going through this ritual on a lot of things lately:

  3. “If you don’t prosecute, or if you don’t investigate, then what you’re saying is government can do anything,” This is an extremely important concept.

    I used to ask Bush supporters why they supported Bush’s grab for dictatorial power and they would always tell me they trusted him to handle it. Now Obama supporters tell me they trust Obama to know who it’s O.K. to kill an American citizen and who it’s O.K. to imprison people without trial etc. There’s a very bad assumption behind this thinking– that anyone should be trusted with these powers. Once you’ve allowed a president to take powers that do not belong to him you are in a state of tyranny, period.

  4. I, too, share Nadler’s concern. It truly boggles my mind that, with the abundance of evidence, the Obama DOJ is allowing the Bush Crime Family to wander about scott-free. If anything pisses me off about Obama, this is it. Truly disgusting.

    BIL:

    LOL – I heard about that yesterday … Ol’ Ruppy must be having a major league hissy fit!!

  5. I’m glad Nadler finally spoke out. Why did it take so long? Why aren’t there more political figures speaking out? Why is the Obama administration “blocking any investigation or prosecution of torture under the Bush Administration?” My guess is that the hands of Democrats are “dirty” on this issue too.

  6. I think the Obama administration is afraid it would backfire politically. Many Americans already think he is a muslim.

  7. Swarthmore Mom,

    I agree Obama has placed political considerations over the fundemental rule of law and that is what I find most disturbing. I am not a politician so my view is probably 180 degrees different than a politician’s but I would rather be a one term POTUS who stood for profound/just/legal principles than an unprincipled two termer?

  8. Actully, Obama is engaged in his very own torture program (and people are going to have to research that for themselves but check into the ACLU, Scott Horton, Andy Worthington, the CCR, Amnesty International and Jeremy Scahill).

    But allow me to take on the idea that it would backfire politically. So what? No one needs to be in elected office. If you run for office with the sole intention of being elected again, that doesn’t say much for you as a person. We should hope that people who run for office have a better purpose in mind, that they wish to do what is right, that they hope to accomplish things for the good of the many. You are also not coming to grips with Obama’s own grab for the powers of a tyrant. It should not be acceptable to any American that their president has said he will imprison the innocent and that he may pick out who he thinks is a Muslim terrorist and kill them. That should backfire politically.

  9. tom Mil You are right. Maybe if we were living in a more prosperous time they would pursue this or maybe not. The focus will remain on unemployment and the economy. I don’t think this country has the stomach for what would be viewed to be political trials now. That is not to say it is not the right thing to do.

  10. If we will living in a more prosperous time, hmmm…where is all that energy and money for multiple wars of empire coming from? How about we drop those and focus on unemployment and restoring the rule of law?

  11. I think if Bush or even Cheney were to be put on trial the tea party would become even more violent.

  12. Smom,

    Let ’em. Because that’s the point those astroturfing assholes Breitbart and Armey’s ‘lil plan blows up in their face.

  13. That tea party propaganda is out and about. Does it explain Obama’s own grab for executive tyranny such as imprisoning the innocent and killing American citizens he considers Muslim terrorists?

  14. So the govt. can find money for wars and Obama can keep adding troops while “working” on unemployment (in other words the govt. can undertake multiple extremely difficult tasks at the same time) but one thing the govt. can’t do is work on unemployment and uphold the rule of law at the same time?

  15. I do not know anything about Nadler; however, I think I might like another Democrat…just as long as he does not say in a day or so that he misspoke or was misquoted.

  16. Who are the American citizens Obama has killed? Do you have a list of names? I would like to know.

  17. I was against the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. I will always remember Nadler because he was against it also. I am against the other war too and am constantly bringing it up to my husband as “Obama’s War.” I defend and criticize Obama.

  18. You need to look up this information for yourself. Let me direct you to Glenn Greenwald. So it’s really O.K. with you that Obama has claimed the power to kill any American citizen he feels is a terrorist (if they live overseas)? This is just like people who were O.K. with Bush taking his powers of a tyrant. These illegal powers do not belong to any person and when a citizen allows it, they allow tyranny. Is it also O.K. to imprison the innocent? I know a lot of Obama supporters who say it is.

    This is a venal way of looking at things, but what happens when President Lynn Cheney inherits these same powers? That’s the question Bush supporters forgot to ask and now they are upset that Obama has these powers and takes more for himself. This doesn’t end by enabling your leader to commit crimes. It ends by standing against injustice, no matter who commits this injustice.

  19. Yes, investigating torture is inviting tyranny…

    and not investigating it is marrying tyranny in a Vegas drive-in after a drunken one-night stand

    or something

  20. I have read Glenn Greenwald off and on for awhile. I have not seen any actual names of US citizens Obama has had killed. You can’t convict someone of murder without a body. Anyways I hope not.

  21. No president should have the powers Obama has inherited from Bush but the genie is out the bottle so to speak and it will be very difficult to reign back in.

  22. Jill–

    “It ends by standing against injustice, no matter who commits this injustice.”

    I couldn’t agree more! I have had arguments with other liberals on the issue of torture. When I heard them mouthing the words about “looking ahead to the future and not back to the past,” I wondered why torturing people wasn’t an issue any longer now that Obama was president. What’s wrong is wrong; what’s immoral is immoral.

  23. Swarthmore mom,

    I ask that you research this. Glenn links to the documents and statements. I’m not certain what you are referring to about not convicting someone of murder without a body in this context. Obama has said he has the right to kill an American citizen if they live overseas and he has determined they are a terrorist. He has also proclaimed his right to imprison the innocent. This also is discussed with documentation at Glenn’s site.

  24. I agree with Beth Hunter’s comments.

    With Steinbrenner’s passing though, I’m sure Billy Martin will be seeking employment elsewhere in heaven!

  25. I am against torture in any form. It has gone on in US jails and prisons from the beginning particularly with regards to minorities.

  26. Jill,

    Seriously, you’ve been on fire the last couple of days.

    Starting a crime wave or perpetuating it instead of prosecuting it is a distinction without difference.

  27. Swarthmore mom,

    Obama uses not only of the powers he inherited but has taken new ones that go beyond even Bush’s. I agree this will be difficult, but we must try. I think if we stand together using the principle outlined by Elaine, “What’s wrong is wrong; what’s immoral is immoral.” we can get somewhere. We may not, but if we don’t try, failure is assured.

  28. Good post Jill. I take issue with you because you seem to demonize Obama not because you are critical of his policies.

  29. Buddha,

    That’s because I am really, really afraid. I see that this nation is in deep shit. Most of the real economy is in the toilet, people are literally starving and homeless. It is awful. We aren’t addressing climate change, the planet is in deep shit and that isn’t up for negotiation. We are getting into more, not less war, we are torturing, doing renditions, redistributing wealth from the bottom to the top, –I could go on, but this is really bad. We need all hands on deck. We cannot afford illusions, we must not succumb to propaganda, we must face the truth full on and try, with the help of as many people as possible, to work together and right these wrongs.

  30. I think you believe I’m demonizing him, but I’m really just laying out what is happening. I got accused of this with Bush as well. I am motivated by concern for my nation and all the suffering I see around me. I appreciate your gracious comment. I know I have been relentless but not for the sake of demonizing or being cruel. It’s for the reason I explained to Buddha.

  31. I should also have added that I agree with you about torture in our prisons. Those techniques migrated to Iraq with some of our prison guards in addition to being the result of orders given by the top officials of the govt. There’s a very good account of this very thing and torture in Iraq in general in the book: Fear Up Harsh.

  32. Jill The extreme anti-Obama rhetoric reminds me of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity,etc., and I react very negatively to it.

  33. Jill,

    Far be it from me to say one is demonizing when one is simply being accurate. I think Obama is most certainly part of the problem as he has not delivered on any of his promised solutions to restoring the rule of law and indeed exacerbated the situation – be it through complicity or simple spinelessness makes no difference. Damage done is damage done.

  34. Swarthmore mom,

    Thank you for your feedback. Have you considered it’s not anti-Obama rhetoric, it’s the truth. I think it is painful for Obama supporters to look at the truth concerning what he is doing. The people I know who voted for him believed in him and wanted the best for our nation. IMO, people were not looking at his actual voting record or they would have seen the man they see now as president. Be that as it may, not one person I know who voted for Obama did so with cynicism. (That’s because I don’t know anyone from GS!)

    I think it is part of the propaganda machine that makes the equation between very cynical, well paid, far right talking heads and progressives. There isn’t a nice way to say the president has taken on dictatorial powers. Many of us in the progressive movement have been ourselves demonized with these false comparisons to right wing cynics. When I tell you that Obama said he has the right to imprison the innocent, how can I say this in a way that won’t offend? I’m reporting what he said and what he is doing. If a right wing talk show host brings up the same thing, I can only assume that that person is there to discredit actual criticism based on honest principle. I’m quite certain they don’t care if an innocent person rots in jail. So using the specific example of imprisoning the innocent, please tell me how I can bring this up in a way that will not offend? I am asking a serious question and not being derisive. If there’s a better way to bring this up, I want to know it because, as I said to Buddha, we need all hands on deck and the liberal base is pretty much MIA right now.

  35. The main reason I defend Obama is that Palin and her crowd are at the gate. They, not progressives of any party, are getting ready to take over congress in the fall.

  36. Congress shares the blame, because it could create a special prosecutor to prosecute torture. In fact, in light of the fact that Obama is allowing torture too, at a secret prison in Afghanistan, there is no way that Obama will prosecute Bush, because he’d have to prosecute himself too. It is up to Congress to prosecute both of them.

  37. Swarthmore mom,

    Could you be really specific about ways to say what is going on that won’t offend. When I say, the president said he may imprison the innocent, this is wrong and we need to do something about it why is this interpreted as being “anti”? I think it’s true to say I am against this, but wouldn’t it be strange not to be against imprisoning the innocent? So how do I say relate this fact so it doesn’t offend? When I say that citizens need to band together to stop this and right injustice, how is that being “anti”?

    Or do you mean I should say nice things about Obama?

  38. Also, I look at “Palin is at the gate” as a thought stopper. To me, that’s not a good reason to support someone who does the things Obama does. He’s crossed lines that make him completely undeserving of public office. We need to vote for a really good candidate. We can’t just vote against someone, we have to vote for someone. Defending what morally and legally can’t be defended won’t help us get through the mess we’re in. Working together will. This is going to take citizen action, which is what it has always taken, we just forgot about that part. We have to make good choices in voting but we have to be good citizens beyond this as well.

  39. Jill,

    Unfortunately, I think it is difficult to elect candidates who tell us Americans the truths we don’t want to hear. Too many of us vote for candidates who tell us what we want to hear. We’re losing the abilty to be critical thinkers. We’re becoming a country of dittoheads. The news media have become purveyors of infotainment. There are too few real journalists like Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman, Seymour Hersh, and Glenn Greenwald. Talking heads on so-called news programs blather on about opinion polls, Sarah Palin–very little of true import. I’m losing hope.

    Here’s a book recommendation for you: “Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free” by Charles P. Pierce

  40. Henry,

    You beat me to the punch. Democrats in Congress have had the power of the subpoena since they took over in 2007 and have done nothing to investigate this. It seems like the Democrats decided not to do it (likely with the idea that it would totally polarize politics if they did). As you point out, Congress still has this power – it’s high time they use it.

    Swarthmore mom,

    I totally agree with you about Caribou Barbie being at the gate. Also, I think that President Obama has had no choice but to focus on domestic issues which he regarded as more urgent (and yes, I believe that preventing a depression is more important than prosecuting torture – I just wish that I still had confidence that he would get to the torture when the economy has recovered).

    Jill,

    I totally agree with you down the line about the way things should be and what the morally right thing to do is – I’m just more concerned about what can actually be done in this political environment (and say what you want about the quality of his policies, no other president (save Lincoln) in our history has managed to get anywhere near this much done in such a toxic environment). I think we differ philosophically on tactics, not goals – probably because you (rightly) fear the corrosive effect of not standing up for our principles more while I am much more terrified at the prospect of the Republicans taking the Whitehouse or either branch of Congress. I believe that we can make slow but steady progress as long as the Democrats remain in control and risk further catastrophe if elect Republicans (especially to the presidency). Hopefully someone (and I think Congress is the more likely candidate here) will eventually investigate and prosecute torture. (Is there a statute of limitations on prosecuting these crimes?)

  41. Jill,

    You are absolutely right and there are more and more citizens coming towards your point of view than moving away from it.

  42. Jill said:

    “Also, I look at “Palin is at the gate” as a thought stopper. To me, that’s not a good reason to support someone who does the things Obama does. He’s crossed lines that make him completely undeserving of public office. We need to vote for a really good candidate. We can’t just vote against someone, we have to vote for someone.”

    This is the same logic that got people to vote for Nader over Gore – I’m sorry but I just don’t agree with it. The world is a melange of grays not black and white and no one is pure. As much as I might agree with you about the morality of the things that President Obama has and has not done, when you put him on the spectrum with his predecessor he looks like Plato’s philosopher king (and do you think we would be better or worse off if Gore was elected in 2000?). We can’t let ‘Palin at the gate’ be a thought stopper but at the same time we can’t for one second forget that Palin (and her ilk) really are at the gate. I can’t support focusing on the agenda you suggest as I believe that it will give them an opening to get through the gate.

  43. Elaine,

    I hate your last comment because it is far too accurate. Try not to give up hope that things can get better, though – the belief that things can improve and that we can help make it happen is something that is quintessentially American to me.

  44. And of course the big stopry is whether or not he stiffed a cabbie on a fare – no mention of any of this in the MSM.

  45. Slartibartfast–

    A poem for you by Dickinson:

    Hope is the thing with feathers
    That perches in the soul,
    And sings the tune without the words,
    And never stops at all,

    And sweetest in the gale is heard;
    And sore must be the storm
    That could abash the little bird
    That kept so many warm.

    I’ve heard it in the chillest land,
    And on the strangest sea;
    Yet, never, in extremity,
    It asked a crumb of me.

  46. What is clearly evident is that war crimes and felony criminal misconduct have in fact occurred. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld must be held accountable. The will or the American people, and public interest have been ignored. The Obama Administration has failed to uphold the rule of law and this malfeasance and dereliction of duty invites more transgressions and is endangering the public. The American people need to vote Pelosi out for her “impeachment is off the table” position and it is time to consider impeachment of President Obama. We want our Constitution, democracy, and rule of law restored.

  47. Palin and Steele were the Republican Party’s desperate attempt to answer Hillary and Obama. Both individuals were excellent at self-promotion, greed, and opportunity recognition but noticeably ignorant in the ways of governance. They have now been properly defined and cataloged. The only gate they opened was a republican one and while they may still roam the RNC meadow, they are mired in their own toxic droppings.

    There will be others, but if our gate is constructed with eyes wide open to all the truth, we will succeed in bringing about a real change.

  48. Some people do what is the heart, some do whats best for the wallet, some do what right, all the time.

  49. Blouise,

    You don’t think there is any chance of the former half-term governor of Alaska being elected president in 2012? Here is my nightmare scenario: The economic impact of the Gulf disaster causes a double-dip recession and makes the economic environment toxic to the Democrats in 2012 and the other candidates split the moderate vote allowing Caribou Barbie’s right-wing block to carry her to enough early primary victories to get the momentum she needs to win the nomination. Sarah Palin is the political equivalent of a zombie: she just wont die and if you let her in sooner or later you find that you no longer have any brains…

    AY,

    It’s not always easy for any of us to know the ‘right’ thing to do. It’s even harder for the president. If your best advisors told you that you could prosecute war crimes or avoid a depression (but not both), what would you do?

  50. Slarti Finally someone on this blog agrees with me about the dangers of Palin and the tea party and what a real threat they present.

  51. Slarti and Smom,

    All the more reason to get to work of producing an actual viable 3rd party to attract moderates from across the spectrum to fight Caribou Barbie and the Teabagger Arm(e)y. I’ve been diligently working away today at Blouise’s suggestion and hope to have something to share soon.

  52. Slartibartfast,

    You are mistaken if you believe I expect perfection from office holders. I do not. What we must never countenance are actions which strike at the heart of our Constitution. Bush and Cheney as well as Obama have done this. To elect such people is to take a hand in the destruction of one’s own govt. That is what I mean about crossing a line that should prevent one from consideration for public office.

    Also, I fear the religious zealots as much as others here. I just don’t think they all have an R behind their name. The president and many member of Congress have shown themselves to be religious zealots. Many of them are members of The Family. Propaganda tells us that it is only people like Sara Palin who are religious nuts. Well, true enough and I would be the last person to disagree with that assessment of her. However, I’m worried not that they will pass the gates, but that they already have. The religious wars are on right now, not in the future, now.

  53. I will disagree that Obama is a “religious zealot”. I researched this and posted that only 4 democratic house members have been invited to join the “Family”. Three are southerners. The “Family” was founded as an anti-catholic group in the thirties. Nancy Pelosi is not a member either.

  54. Obama said he would bring the about kingdom of god on earth. (See the NYTimes) That is a classic statement of a religious zealot. Think also of the military and our contractors. The people Obama has hired at the top of the chain of command (as well as contractors) speak of a crusade in Muslim lands. This isn’t a secret. Why would Obama appoint people who think of these wars as a crusade to positions of power in the military? Rick Warren at the inauguration? Faith based initiatives in plain sight–yes. Happy to hold the prayer breakfast, yes. If Sara were president and did these things, would you think she was a religious zealot? I’m going to guess you would.

    The Family isn’t advertising their membership but their idea of leadership is known to us. Obama has shown himself to be a ruthless power monger, just the kind of person they like. As to Nancy, JT had a recent post about her religious blathering. It’s pretty amazing stuff. Reading it, one could easily conclude it was Sara talking. The Family doesn’t care what religion you are, just that you’re powerful and willing to do anything.

  55. Nancy Pelosi supports a woman’s right to choose and gay marriage. These are hardly the “Family’s” positions. She is a church attending catholic although some have threatened to ex-communicate her. When the choice becomes Obama and one of their own running for president, the “Family” will pick their own whether it is Sarah Palin or someone else.

  56. Jill said, “The Family doesn’t care what religion you are, just that you’re powerful and willing to do anything.”

    Once again illustrating the problem is rooted in sociopaths being in office.

  57. Swarthmore mom,

    The philosophy of the Family is complicated and could easily hold Nancy and Obama in its fold. Jeff Sharlet’s book explains how this can be. However, I don’t have a secret knowledge of their membership and won’t claim to. I gave given examples of religious zealotry by Obama and Pelosi. Those examples really occurred and are documented. I notice that you don’t address these examples. You are rightly afraid of religious zealots. Applying the Elaine test, ie: if it’s illegal, it’s illegal, if it’s immoral, it’s immoral, would be helpful in clarifying religious zealotry.

  58. I must be living in a parallel universe to many on this blog. Everything I have read about the”Family” says they are a religious christian fundamentalist organization. One catholic belonged,Joe Stupak, but I think they turned against him after he voted for healthcare. No Jews are invited to join.

  59. From Amy Goodman’s interview with Jeff Sharlet on Democracy Now last August:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet

    AMY GOODMAN: But you’re Jewish. How did you fit in?

    JEFF SHARLET: In fact, that was part of what was interesting about me to them. They do believe only in sort of recruiting an elite. They’re not interested the masses. They think that Christianity has been misunderstood, that Jesus only wanted to select a few key people. You can only get in by invitation. I was invited. But they also liked the idea of having Jews, of having Muslims around, because they believe that inasmuch as a Jew or a Muslim is willing to bow before Jesus, he is proving what they call the “universal inevitable” of Jesus’ power.

  60. An appreciation of the profound damage done by the Bush/Cheney regime to the constitutional foundations of this country has been largely lost in the din of jingoism and false patriotism surrounding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I strongly supported the election of Barack Obama because I was convinced that he understood that the rule of law is all that we have and that he would be committed to its restoration. I was wrong.

    The primary obligation imposed by the presidential oath is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. All of the other duties of the office are subordinate. Had Pres. Obama undertaken to fulfill this duty with seriousness of purpose, his presidency would be viewed as heroic. Instead he chose to ignore that duty. Whether he was motivated by a need to address the serious problems he inherited, by a fear of being perceived as weak on defense, or by a misguided belief that building a spirit of bipartisanship for the future was more important than forcing the nation to come to terms with the past, the consequence is change I can’t believe in, a growing acceptance of the idea that the executive branch may determine for itself the laws by which it will be bound.

    An outlaw administration ran roughshod over the law for eight years. The failure to squarely confront wrongdoing is to ratify it. The failure to prosecute the wrongdoers is to legitimize their actions. The President’s refusal to acknowledge this truth dooms his presidency to failure, regardless of how many legislative victories he may secure.

    It is ironic and disheartening that a people so seemingly consumed with self-righteous anger over the prospect of amnesty for illegal aliens should remain largely silent over constitutional abuses of far greater importance and perhaps permanent future significance.

  61. Jill said:

    “You are mistaken if you believe I expect perfection from office holders. I do not. What we must never countenance are actions which strike at the heart of our Constitution. Bush and Cheney as well as Obama have done this. To elect such people is to take a hand in the destruction of one’s own govt. That is what I mean about crossing a line that should prevent one from consideration for public office.”

    Since the 2000 election one of my core beliefs is that the choice between bad and worse is far more important that the choice between good and better. While I agree with many of your points about what President Obama has done, I don’t think that his actions are anywhere near the actions of President Bush and Dick the war criminal in severity. I don’t believe that you expect perfection in our leaders, I am just much more pragmatic than you about what ends are achievable in our current political environment (I think we would agree on which ends are desirable if not how to prioritize or achieve them).

    Also, I fear the religious zealots as much as others here. I just don’t think they all have an R behind their name.

    Yes, but many of them of them do – the religious zealots with which I am most concerned with at present are the ones on the right wing – if you think I should watch out for left-wing religious zealots, please give me an example of who or what you’re talking about.

    The president and many member of Congress have shown themselves to be religious zealots.

    I can’t agree with you here – President Obama actions do not show religious zealotry in my opinion. Maybe we’re having a semantic issue – what is your definition of a religious zealot?

    Many of them are members of The Family.

    I have a deep distrust of anyone who is (or was) a member of the Family, Republican or Democrat.

    Propaganda tells us that it is only people like Sara Palin who are religious nuts.

    I try not to base my opinions on propaganda – everyone is entitled to be as nutty about their religion (or lack thereof) as they want, it’s when they start preaching about how everyone else should share their irrational beliefs or acting to enshrine them in law that I have a problem.

    Well, true enough and I would be the last person to disagree with that assessment of her. However, I’m worried not that they will pass the gates, but that they already have. The religious wars are on right now, not in the future, now.

    I guess I’d better go an join up with the pastafarian militia, then (and pray that we are all protected by his noodlely appendage). I think that the ‘war’ metaphor is overused. Heightening the rhetoric only helps the zealots, in my opinion. (Although I certainly feel the frustration with the way the right has been painting the left as un-American – we need to learn that calling your opponent un-American is the most un-American thing that you can do.)

    Elaine,

    Thanks for the poem.

    Swarthmore mom,

    I volunteered for President Obama as soon as I learned about who Sarah Palin was and I will do it again in 2012 if she is on the ballot. Should she ever become president I will emigrate if at all possible.

    Buddha,

    I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

  62. Elaine, thank you for the Dickinson poem. I love her work and have never read another poet with her ability to compress such powerful feeling into such spare, gentle and delicate language. Of course, were she alive today, her critics would probably dismiss her as “that poor, deluded Emily Dickinson. She just doesn’t understand people.”

  63. Jill, I have to disagree somewhat with your interpretation of the theology of the Family. My reading of the book convinces me that they adhere to a form of repackaged Calvinism where the elect are recognized by their wealth and political prominence. They are historically anti-semitic. But they are also anti-Catholic because the hierarchical, authoritarian structure of the Catholic Church presents a competing power. They are anti-democratic because they do not believe the world should operate through the will of voters. Instead, they are attempting to build a government in which highly selective principles of fundamentalist Christianity are used to wed economic power with political power to create an elite governing class.

  64. I agree with Nadler.

    And, Bybee, Yoo and the other guy (Addington?) who fabricated the torture memos should have been referred by the DOJ to their respective Bar Associations for disciplinary action.

  65. The crime against the persons pales in comparison to the crime against the state; and the crime against the state lay not in the act of torture but in THE ACT OF MAKING IT PROCEDURE.

    Hmmmm… now where did those words come from? Or these.

    In these rare cases, where the leaders exercise power beyond right which no one has a right to, there is claimed defense of “criminalizing politics” since the tool used to make the criminal act a matter of procedure is politics.

    Dang was Wallace H. Hartley…? No someone current.

    To put it another (categorical) way, the law does not allow the defense of ‘politicizing crime’ (See the Declaration of Independence).

    AMPLIFICATION: Politicizing crime, as a defense, is in fact legalizing crime; i.e. tyranny

    Bob, Esq. give us more than the Brooklyn Bus Driver one liner.
    10 points for the Chapin selection.

  66. Isabel,

    In my opinion Yoo, Bybee and the other authors of the memos are the only ones clearly guilty of wrongdoing here. Even the worst prosecutor in the world should be able to put their balls in a vice (figuratively speaking ;-)) and convince them to cooperate or indict them. They should be disciplined by the Justice Department before the Bar gets a hold of them.

  67. (saw the following article on the web – Franz)

    OBAMA AVOIDS BIBLE VERSES !

    Here are some Bible verses that Pres. Obama avoids:
    Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): “It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury – how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!”
    Also Proverbs 30:22 (NIV) which says that the earth cannot bear up under “a servant who becomes king.”
    And Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 (KJV) advises: “let thy words be few…a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.”
    Although Obama is not descended from slaves, he may feel that he’s destined to become a black-slavery avenger.
    Or maybe an enslaver of all free citizens!

    Also Google “Mayor ‘Napoleon’ Bloomberg.”

  68. Franz,

    “OBAMA AVOIDS BIBLE VERSES !”

    Well that’s a good thing considering “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Including Christianity.

    The rest of your babbling is simply racist drivel.

  69. Mike Appleton

    Jill, I have to disagree somewhat with your interpretation of the theology of the Family. My reading of the book convinces me that they adhere to a form of repackaged Calvinism where the elect are recognized by their wealth and political prominence. They are historically anti-semitic. But they are also anti-Catholic because the hierarchical, authoritarian structure of the Catholic Church presents a competing power. They are anti-democratic because they do not believe the world should operate through the will of voters. Instead, they are attempting to build a government in which highly selective principles of fundamentalist Christianity are used to wed economic power with political power to create an elite governing class.

    ===============================================================

    Jill, My take on Sharlet’s book is similar to Mike A’s … a Calvinistic, almost predestination, religious philosophy that was part of the “reform” of the Church of England that still managed to justify an elite royalty without actually calling it that. That philosophy did not hold up well back then due to many weak points of theology and won’t hold up well now. This is evidenced by Sharlet’s book and other fallen away disciples.

    For the founders of this cult it is nothing more than an ego trip that makes money … very pedestrian.

  70. Slartibartfast

    Blouise,

    You don’t think there is any chance of the former half-term governor of Alaska being elected president in 2012?
    ==============================================================

    In my opinion, Sarah Palin looked around from her perch as VP candidate (a position she campaigned for heavily within the party) and asked herself one question: “Who is making the most money and how are they doing it?” She then used her position as candidate to put herself squarely in the marketplace. Will she run in 2012? Only if her financial schemes have failed … which I don’t think they will.

    Now, will there be other Palinesque candidates in 2012? … you betcha. She’s opened up a whole new industry.

  71. Blouise,

    I hope you’re right, but my gut tells me that she hasn’t ruled out running for the presidency (you know, if God tells her to…). While I agree with you about other Palinesque candidates, I think she is the only Palinesque candidate that has a shot at the Presidency anytime soon (I don’t think anyone like Michelle Bachman can make the jump).

  72. Mike Appleton @ 1, July 14, 2010 at 5:27 pm
    ______________

    Exceptionally well-stated Mike A; however, I could say that about most of your posts regarding a myriad of subjects discussed herein. Thanks for your contributions.

  73. Buddha, it may be that or may be because I said religion doesn’t matter, just power and the willingness to do anything. Elaine was kind enough to provide the quote to address that issue:

    “From Amy Goodman’s interview with Jeff Sharlet on Democracy Now last August:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/12/sharlet

    AMY GOODMAN: But you’re Jewish. How did you fit in?

    JEFF SHARLET: In fact, that was part of what was interesting about me to them. They do believe only in sort of recruiting an elite. They’re not interested the masses. They think that Christianity has been misunderstood, that Jesus only wanted to select a few key people. You can only get in by invitation. I was invited. But they also liked the idea of having Jews, of having Muslims around, because they believe that inasmuch as a Jew or a Muslim is willing to bow before Jesus, he is proving what they call the “universal inevitable” of Jesus’ power.

  74. Death of a Salesman
    A slew of new polls suggest Obama is not a great pitchman for his policies.
    By John Dickerson
    Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2010, at 8:09 PM ET

    President ObamaOn Thursday, the president will travel to Holland, Mich., to tout investments created by the Recovery Act. Several other administration officials, including the vice president, will hit the road, too. These periodic jaunts are part of “Recovery Summer,” a months-long enterprise that, like the summer trips everyone else takes, will be punctuated by a single question: “Are we there yet?”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2260359/

    This may put it all into perspective.

  75. The question is why haven’t the majority of Americans also joined to call their Rep’s and complain about not prosecuting Bush & his gang?

  76. Oh goody. Then we get to go after Clinton and Albright for starving 500,000 children to death in Iraq?

  77. I can see a scenario that may have happened.

    President Obama calls DOJ chief Holder in and says:

    “Heres the deal. You do what must be done to prosecute the illegalities of the last administration. I don’t want to know what’s in progress. My stated position is going to be I’m looking forward not backward. You know why I picked you for AG – in part to get that job done. Now, if indictments can be held off until after Nov. 2010, great. If it can’t – so be it. Just as long as it gets done before 2012, cause I may be a one-term Prez.

    Maybe wishful thinking, but does anyone really think what’s best for the country right now is to wallow in another Watergate type prosecution considering the economy and 2 wars still raging?

    “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” – Voltaire

  78. Mike A. and Blouise,

    Please let me know why you disagree with me. I like both of you a great deal and truly respect what you say. If I don’t know what I’m saying that’s incorrect I can’t correct myself.

    If it’s because I said the Family recruits the ruthless powerful from any religion it may be that I have added information from Jeff’s interviews that wasn’t in the book. I don’t have the book now. Just let me know what’s going on.

    Here is just a short piece from one of several interviews Rachael Maddow did with Jeff: “the group’s leader {spoke} regarding the its philosophy of “the totalitarianism of Christ”:
    He said to Tiahrt what you need to do is form a covenant with your brothers in Christ,… He says when you do this, when you commit total loyalty to each other, and you vow to keep up each others secrets, you can accomplish much more. And he gave to Congressman Tiahrt examples of guys who had done this very well, he thought. Hitler, Pol Pot, Osama bin Laden, and Lenin,…” The Family really does recruit/support powerful people of any religion.

  79. Exactly Buckeye. And that is why Obama has his own torture program and has expanded executive power beyond even Bushcheney. These are all parts of his plan to prosecute Bush and Cheney. The enemy of the good is the bad.

  80. Totalitarianism of Jesus Christ?

    Well, that’s a new one on me.

    Democrats would only wish Christianity taught such things because it would make their Marxist schemes much more easier to accomplish.

    One has a personal (individual)relationship with Christ who is the sole authority. The emphasis (from top down) is on the individual. With totalitarianism the emphasis (from the top down) is on the group.

    With Christianity the individual submits first to God. With totalitarianism the individual must submit first to the state, and never to God (God is a threat to the totalitarian).

    With a totalitarian framework there is no private judgment allowed to be expressed publicly (or else). Christianity is based on open expression of private judgment. It is requisite.

    The New Testament has, for 2000 years, taught the concept of freedom and liberty. In other words it has enshrined freedom liberty (despite the errors of believers and others). This is one reason why Marxists like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Mao, Stalin, Chavez, and Castro hate Christianity and true believers. On the other hand they love liars like Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Obama who claim to be Christians but are not. Exceptions are people like Bush whose also claims to be a Christian but is not. And since he is a republican, he must be hated by them.

    If he became a democrat then he would be redeemed and saved by the god of the democrats. Democrats worship a political party, not the true God.

    Freedom cannot exist without rules.

    Free:
    Galations 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us FREE, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

    John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, ye shall be free indeed.

    Liberty:

    Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

    James 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of LIBERTY, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

    Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious LIBERTY of the children of God.

    Each of us individually stands before God to account for ourselves. In totalitarian systems, groups are punished.

    Like, say, businessmen. Or the rich.

  81. Jill

    “Exactly Buckeye. And that is why Obama has his own torture program and has expanded executive power beyond even Bushcheney. These are all parts of his plan to prosecute Bush and Cheney.”

    ——————————————————

    What am I missing? How would Obama’s actions of a continuing torture program and expanding exec. power lead AG Holder to prosecute Bush and Cheney and not prosecute Obama? Seems like neither the country nor congress would go along with that.

  82. You’re missing the irony. You are claiming that Obama is playing 12 dimension chess, (an oldie in the excuse tool box) and plans to prosecute bush and cheney after the 2010 election. If this is true, how do you explain Obama’s own continuation of torture right now and his grab for executive power which exceeds that even of Bushcheney?

  83. CCD: Bob, Esq. give us more than the Brooklyn Bus Driver one liner.
    10 points for the Chapin selection.

    The only reason you’re asking me to elaborate is because you know exactly what I’m thinking.

    To wit: “AMPLIFICATION: Politicizing crime, as a defense, is in fact legalizing crime; i.e. tyranny”

    So, let’s review the definition:

    “AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

    http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr18.htm

    Thus, since we live in a time when politicizing crime isn’t ‘the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to,’ then we’re truly in the ‘Dance Band on the Titanic.’

    QED.

  84. Bob,

    I submit that it is rapidly approaching the time for the band to storm the bridge, throw a few people in the brig and a couple over the railing. As peacefully and democratically as possible of course.

  85. Bob, Esq just described Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

    Of course it describes Bush too, but he is not in power. And boy, did it ever backfire on him. He is a worm in hiding.

  86. Jill
    1, July 14, 2010 at 9:25 pm
    Mike A. and Blouise,

    I agree with you. I’m not certain where we are at a disagreement.
    ****************************************
    Mike A. and Blouise,

    Please let me know why you disagree with me. I like both of you a great deal and truly respect what you say. If I don’t know what I’m saying that’s incorrect I can’t correct myself.

    ================================================================
    Jill,

    I’m sorry to have taken so long … I’ve been spending a lot of time on the “Oakland Police Announce They Will Not Respond To Burglary, Grand Theft, and Other Crimes” thread and the discussion concerning the CPP. You must get yourself on that thread and start contributing to that discussion.

    As to The Family … it is not really a disagreement so much as a slight difference in interpretation … a nuance of color shades … interestingly enough, we had this same discussion in both book clubs. I agree that they will take anybody who has power but … and here is the nuance … it is my opinion that only Protestants will gain full access based on the Calvinistic bent that I see in their core beliefs. That’s all. I guess it’s kind of like the question: “Was Henry the VIII driven to break from Rome by a lust for power or lust for a legitimate male heir?” Both are true and the only difference in opinion is a nuance of color in interpretation.

    Now my dear, get Thee to the thread I mentioned and join the discussion on the third party we are creating!

  87. Bob, Esq. one further question.

    How does a citizen of the great Empire State, a man well versed in the science of law and life, a beloved tactician of justice if you will. How can they assume the duck and cover/fetal position when, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    Are being subverted?

  88. Hey Blouise,

    Thanks for clarifying but honestly, I still agree with you and Mike A.! From everything we know, (which certainly isn’t everything!) the top people are fundamentalist christians. I’m just glad they do let others in and I’m expecting an invitation for everyone on this blog! Also, thanks for sending me back to the third party party!!

    Swarthmore mom,

    The christian crusader movement in the army isn’t just the enlisted, it’s the top people, both in regular, special forces and contractors. These top people are an interlocking directorate with the top people in the govt. That’s a disaster in way you look at it.

  89. Jill

    Sorry, I missed the irony. Perhaps you are too subtle for me.

    I am sure you have proof that Pres. Obama is continuing torture and making more of a grab for executive power than Bush/Cheney did, not just making those assertions, and I would appreciate your pointing me to a reputable source. Thanks, Buckeye.

  90. Hi, Jill. I think Blouise accurately described the subtleties. I think the club is a bit more restrictive than what you described. The Family doesn’t extend invitations to all sitting members of Congress for good reason. God has chosen the US to establish His kingdom on earth. That will be accomplished by a group of men chosen for their economic and political power (i.e., those with the requisite “leadership” virtues) and sufficiently possessed of fundamentalist ideology to willingly follow the Family’s theological blueprint. That blueprint is a hybrid, elitist religion combining prosperity theology with notions of American exceptionalism and free market capitalism, the beneficiaries of whom are, of course, the elect chosen by the Family. Its success will confirm the righteousness of those few who are invited to join. It is, at bottom, a religion of corporatism. More coarsely stated, it is a deformed, twisted, self-serving form of materialism labeled as Christianity, a sort of theological circle jerk.

  91. Mike–

    “That blueprint is a hybrid, elitist religion combining prosperity theology with notions of American exceptionalism and free market capitalism, the beneficiaries of whom are, of course, the elect chosen by the Family.”

    “More coarsely stated, it is a deformed, twisted, self-serving form of materialism labeled as Christianity, a sort of theological circle jerk.”

    As always–you know how to hit the nail on the head with one smite of the hammer. Strunk and White would have loved you. Maybe one day we’ll see a new edition of “Elements of Style” with revisions by Mike Appleton.

    *********

    May I also add that these “family” members are also self-righteous and smarmy.

    **********

    BTW, Sharlet describes himself in his book as half-Jew, half-Christian.

  92. To All:

    I know some of you subscribe to threads, so I’m reposting this here just in case some of you missed it elsewhere:

    “Completely OT but it is news I must share and it is news that will be welcome by all regulars:

    I have heard from Mike Spindell.

    He is currently undergoing treatment and on the national transplant waiting list, but the treatments and the wait takes most of his energy these days. Despite his absence and in his words, ‘I look forward to the day when I can come back and take up the cudgels, the sooner the better. Please say hello and give my regards to everyone there and let them know I do think about them. Your Pal, Mike'”

  93. Elaine,

    Until we get the “Strunk & White: The Mike Appleton Funky Fresh Remix”, I’ve rather gotten a kick out of Karen Elizabeth Gordon’s two contributions, “The Transitive Vampire – A Handbook of Grammar for the Innocent, the Eager and the Doomed” and “The Well-tempered Sentence – A Punctuation Handbook for the Innocent, the Eager and the Doomed”.

  94. Buddha,

    Thanks for the information about Mike. He is sorely missed at the Turley Blawg. He will be in my thoughts. I’d say a prayer for him–but I’m an atheist. Do send him my regards.

  95. Elaine,

    No I haven’t read that one. I’ll add it to “The List”.

    And I’ll be glad to relay the message. :D

  96. Elaine: I tried that once as a Jesuit novice, but we had to wear only black. It apparently doesn’t produce the same creative impact.

    Buddha: Thanks for the information on Mike S. I hope you’ll let him know that he’s in all of our thoughts.

  97. I like to read what both Mikes have to say. I really like Mike A.’s viewpoints on religion, and he is a University of Texas Law graduate. My daughter will be attending that school in the fall as scholarships prevailed over the full tuition at Georgetown. Although I think she prefers Georgetown,if money was not a factor.

  98. Buddha–

    The Panda Joke:

    A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.

    “Why?” asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage.

    The panda pauses on his way out, produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual, and tosses it over his shoulder.

    “Well, I’m a panda,” he says at the door. “Look it up.”

    The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation:

    “Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.”

  99. Buddha: “I submit that it is rapidly approaching the time for the band to storm the bridge, throw a few people in the brig and a couple over the railing. As peacefully and democratically as possible of course.”

    ‘Approaching?!’

    That’s a rather asymptotic view of things; don’t you think?

  100. Asymptotic > hyperbole

    Triple word score!

    That aside you don’t sound convinced, with metaphysical certitude, that certain parties broke certain laws necessitating punishment in accord with the categorical imperative. Or, as Kant would put it had he seen the film ‘Unforgiven’ …

    “Deserve’s got nothin to do with it.”

    Maybe that’s part of the reason why I’m having a hard time forming a reply to CCD’s last post.

  101. Oh I am most certainly convinced, Bob. Heads must be put on pikes to please the Blind Lady, but if I stray into sedition, you guys would miss me when the DHS Black Suburbans take me away to an “undisclosed location”.

  102. Mike A.,

    I didn’t say everyone in congress was tapped as a member. Sorry to disagree with you, but I agree with everything you said. I just didn’t say what you think I did!

    To everyone, very nice (and funny) work!

    Sorry to hear about Mike S. I hope the transplant will come soon.

  103. Elaine,

    Actually it is a book about punctuation which, if you ignore, can create funny sentences.

    For example:

    Eats shoots and leaves.

    Means something completely different from:

    Eats, shoots and leaves.

    In the US we add the second comma:

    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

    Truss’s book was written for the British writer.

  104. Tootie,

    I read the book. That’s why I recommended it to Buddha. I thought he might enjoy it as much as I did. I never recommend books I haven’t already read.

    P.S. There is also a picture book version of “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” for children. I like its subtitle: “Why, Commas Really DO Make a Difference!”

  105. According to an article in the NYT yesterday, Bybee was the witness at a closed-door session of the Judiciary Panel [congressional or senate, I can’t remembr] a few months ago. They had him squirming according to the NYT. Now he’s saying that he didn’t know or couldn’t foresee what his memos would “lead to.” I would love to get the transcript. Who knows, maybe something may come of this.

  106. Isanbel,

    Bybee flat out admitted he’d authorized waterboarding. The problem he felt with some of the “interrogations” was that they had too many sequences of waterboarding! Why is this man not indicted?

    Here’s my favorite line: “For example, Bybee said, his memo, cowritten with attorney John Yoo, authorized waterboarding only if there were no “substantial repetitions.”

  107. Are you waiting for Bybee to be indicted because he admitted to authorizing waterboarding? Because he just admitted to authorizing a war crime, yet nothing is happening to him. I doubt he will either be impeached or even investigated, although by law he should be.

    This is just a set up to go for a few people who over waterboarded–a show trial so Obama can say he and Holder really went after people who tortured outside the “law”. It’s another show for his supporters so they won’t look beneath the surface., They’ll be happy and keep their denial about what the law really says and who Obama really is.

  108. Jill

    No. I’m waiting for an answer to my previous post. I’ll reprint it here.

    I am sure you have proof that Pres. Obama is continuing torture and making more of a grab for executive power than Bush/Cheney did, not just making those assertions, and I would appreciate your pointing me to a reputable source. Thanks, Buckeye.

  109. buckeye,

    I already did that early in the thread. I am sure there is proof and the references I gave should do the trick.

  110. From wikileaks:

    “Real change begins Monday in the WashPost. By the years end, a reformation. Lights on. Rats out.”

  111. Here’s an interesting article on the NYT’s use of word “torture” from Glenn Greenwald.

    The NYT’s nationalistic double standard
    by Glenn Greenwald (Salon.com, 7/16/2010)
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/07/16/nyt/index.html

    Excerpt:
    Here’s a particularly illustrative example of how The New York Times’ editorial policy — it cannot be “torture” if the United States does it — obfuscates the truth and actively bolsters government propaganda. There are countless examples like this, but this one is unusually stark, especially since these two episodes occur within one day of each other:

    From today’s article on how the CIA used tactics never authorized by the DOJ:

    A former Bush Justice Department official who approved brutal interrogation methods by the C.I.A. has told Congress that he never authorized several other rough tactics reportedly inflicted on terrorism suspects — including prolonged shackling to a ceiling and repeated beatings.

    So in NYT World, even shackling helpless detainees to the ceiling for prolonged periods and repeatedly beating them is not “torture,” but are rather merely “rough tactics” or “brutal interrogation methods” . . . if it’s high-level U.S. government officials who have authorized them. But, from a NYT article yesterday:

    U.S. Court Orders Safety, Not Deportation, for Woman Facing Torture
    By Nina Bernstein (7/15/2010)

    [A] federal appeals court last week ordered the United States to provide a haven for a woman facing the likelihood of torture in China. . . . Others named in the same warrant and caught by the Chinese police had described beatings, suffocation, electric shocks, sleep deprivation and other forms of torture to get them to disclose details about the human rights group to which they all belonged.

  112. Elaine,

    What I found especially galling was it was a Bush attorney laying a groundwork for a defense case. Some things are simply indefensible. You’re running the shop, you get the blame, plain and simple. The buck doesn’t stop with the guy holding the water hose. It stops with the guy who gave him the order and/or had the bad judgment to put people with criminal tendencies in such a position.

  113. Buddha–

    It’s sad that there are so few journalists like Greenwald that we can trust to tell us the truth.

    **********

    Remember Monica Goodling…another Bush attorney? She was a graduate of the prestigious Regent University Law School!

    The Monica Goodling Report
    (From Firedoglake)
    By: emptywheel Monday July 28, 2008 7:47 am
    http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/28/the-monica-goodling-report/

    Excerpt:
    The Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office has released another of its reports on the politicization of DOJ under Bush. This one ought to be called the Monica Goodling report, as it focuses on her litmus test hiring. I’ll post some updates on the details, but here is the conclusion:

    In sum, the evidence showed that Sampson, Williams, and Goodling violated federal law and Department policy, and Sampson and Goodling committed misconduct, by considering political and ideological affiliations in soliciting and selecting IJs, which are career positions protected by the civil service laws.

    Not only did this process violate the law and Department policy, it also caused significant delays in appointing IJs. These delays increased the burden on the immigration courts, which already were experiencing an increased workload and a high vacancy rate. EOIR Deputy Director Ohlson repeatedly requested candidate names to address the growing number of vacancies, with little success. As a result of the delay in providing candidates, the Department was unable to timely fill the large numbers of vacant IJ positions.

  114. Jill

    Yeah, I looked at them already.

    The rest of Scott Horton’s “story”.

    http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/08/former_metairie_resident_joins.html

    http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/04/16/37523-usace-official-in-afghanistan-goes-undercover-to-help-fbi-snare-contracting-cheats/

    The others seem to be about Bush admin. or concern about the Obama administration’s refusal to release Bagram torture photos and/or denial of Bagram prisoners access to US courts. Scahill seems to be a Blackwater exposer.

    Maybe you have other information I missed?

  115. You missed the information I gave you. Misrepresent things all you want because people who seek the truth will look right past misinformation and propaganda.

  116. Jill

    OK. Give me the links and I’ll look at them. Nothing so far, though – as far as proof the Obama administration is torturing people, that is.

    Perhaps we are both one of those people that see only what they want to see – not necessarily the whole truth.

  117. buckeye,

    If you’re serious about learning the truth, I gave you the places to look, and you’ll have to research this for yourself. Then you’re going to have to make your own informed decision.

    wikileaks: “Real change begins Monday in the WashPost. By the years end, a reformation. Lights on. Rats out.”

  118. Bill Clinton received his Juris Doctor when he became a prestigious graduate from Yale. That must mean he is virtuous, wise, and incapable of torturing others. David Koresh, call your office. Oh wait, he is dead. Never mind.

    Yet Clinton, and his little hand-maid Madeleine Albright, would seal the fate of 500,000 starving Iraqi children until they died. Tsk tsk and ho hum. Nobody cares. It doesn’t hurt to starve to death espeically if you are a child. They didn’t have prestigious college degrees anyway, so, who cares.

    Democrats did not flinch, have not flinched, and will they ever flinch? Not likely. Why should they care about starving 500,000 Iraqi children to death when they don’t even care about 48 million genetically unique human organisms (soon to be born) snuffed out in the womb? These would have been their own countrymen. 500,000 dead Iraqi children are a trivial matter to these folks.

    I saw Martin Luther King’s grand-daughter (or was it his niece?) on Glenn Beck over the weekend. She made a poignant point. She wants reparations all right, but it’s not what you think. She wants reparations from Planned Parenthood. You know, the guilty party who has hurt blacks. She thinks living persons should “repair” what evils they have done currently to others. And so she is opposed to innocent descendants paying for what guilty ancestors did (like innocent persons today paying for slavery long past).

    Planned Parenthood was founded for the purpose of eliminating people, like, say, blacks, from America. She hasn’t forgotten this and she wants them to pay for the loss to the black population by Planned Parenthood.

    Heh heh. Justice bites.

    She remembers that abortion strikes blacks at a higher rate than whites and every other group, and she knows who the current guilty parties of this slaughter are. I’m thinking about writing to her to tell her who is responsible for blacks’ high illiteracy rate. Most blacks in prison are functionally illiterate and there is only one group of people responsible for that: democrats/unions/NEA.

    Reparations indeed.

    Anyway, back to the subject.

    Clinton will get off scott-free especially if his wifey is prez.

    In fact many democrats, who wound up getting hundreds of thousands of Americans slaughtered and maimed in their demented interventionist wars, graduated from prestigious universities. It takes having a prestigious college degree to get away with torture, maiming, and murder.

    Woodrow Wilson sent tens of thousands off to slaughter and trauma. This isn’t torture. No, indeed not. It’s only torture when you are the “enemy” and are maimed for no just cause. When it is your fellow countrymen it is OKAY.

    Then there was FDR. He was a real peach. Again, he is another democrat who graduated from a “prestigious” university. This time Harvard. He lied his way to war last century. Hundreds of thousands of US citizens perished and were maimed. This ain’t torture either because these are not enemies. It isn’t murder because he had a prestigious college degree at an institution leftists admire.

    FDR made the world safe for democracy. Oh yes. I’m so safe. Thank you.

    Apparently, in America a prestigious degree is a free pass to torture and kill Americans and get away with it.

    Of course, Abraham Lincoln is an exception. He was, first, a republican, and next, he didn’t have a prestigious degree. But he got away with it too. Democrats really love him right now (he didn’t like blacks). But that is OKAY to them since he provides the template to justify torture and murder of Americans. That means a lot to democrats.

    Lincoln was a monster who persecuted his critics, threw them in jail, ruined their careers, and sent his military on a rampage against women and children in the south (raping them, starving them, and burning down their homes). Oh how charming! No wonder democrats and leftists suddenly like him.

    Sherman (West Point trained) said he should have been executed for what he was authorized to do to American civilians during the un-Civil War. Ho, and hum. It’s just another crazy American president torturing and murdering people.

    Don’t take away Democrat fun and games, and hopes and dreams, just to score political points against Bush. That is so short-sighted. Think of all the Christians and republicans Democrats could torture and murder if Bush and Clinton get away with it like all the rest have.

  119. I think you may be onto something here, Tootie.

    President Bush has a B.A. from Yale and a M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. And VP Cheney has a (B.A/M.B.A) from the University of Wyoming.

    It’s obvious to me, as you indicate, “Apparently, in America a prestigious degree is a free pass to torture and kill Americans and get away with it”. I wonder why no one else has had this insight.

    Now on the other hand, Glen Beck only has a high school degree from Sehome High School in Bellingham, WA. And Rush Limbaugh doesn’t even have a high school degree.

    I would assume, following your logic, that either of these famous Americans would make a better President. Or am I on the wrong track once again? It’s so confusing…

  120. Jill posted the following:

    From wikileaks:

    “Real change begins Monday in the WashPost. By the years end, a reformation. Lights on. Rats out.”

    ____

    Thanks for this, Jill. I heard about part of the story on MSNBC this morning. What’s going on is obscene, cruel and criminal. Good, decent, law-abiding people are being targeted and harassed, among other things.

    Perhaps this will be the beginning of the unraveling.

  121. Here’s a possibility come 2012, go over his platform and HOW to overcome the 2 party system…………nows the time to get started.

  122. buckeye: I presume Beck and Limbaugh would go to jail since they don’t possess Ivy league degrees (and if they were president and if they were in charge of various and sundry slaughters, starvation, and mutilations).

    Hope that clears things up a bit.

  123. Tootie

    That’s a load off. Let’s hope they don’t become dastardly Democrats anytime soon. You don’t think they will, do you? I really don’t need anything else to worry about right now!

  124. buckeye:

    Hell would have to freeze over before they would join up with the Dems, but it appears we are having a lengthy warming trend.

    Certainly according to Al Gore.

Comments are closed.