Many of us have been alarmed by the obvious effort of the Obama staff to avoid any investigation of confirmed war crimes by the Bush Administration in the torture program. Obama and Attorney General nominee Eric Holder have been suggesting that a war crime investigation would be “uncivil” and “looking backwards.” It has not gone over well since torture is a crime under eight treaties and statutes. Now, General Michael V. Hayden claims that Obama secretly promised him that there would be no war crimes investigation or prosecution in a meeting in Chicago.
Hayden’s role in this growing controversy is particularly distressing for civil libertarians. Not only does it confirm signals coming from the Obama camp since the election, but Hayden has been a particularly dark figure in the unlawful surveillance and torture programs, including statements that have been criticized as knowingly misleading or outright false.
Hayden had a closed door meeting with Obama last month in Chicago. He said Obama made it clear that the Bush Administration and CIA staff have nothing to worry about. “He’s looking forward,” Hayden said, “and that’s very appropriate.” If true, it would be confirmation of a bait-and-switch by the democrats. For years, the Democrats insisted that they could not act on torture until they controlled Congress. Once they were given both houses of Congress, Democrats insisted that they could not do anything without control of the White House. When they won the White House, the Democrats insisted that there was not enough time before Inauguration. Now, they are insisting that they must “look to the future: and notably not to the war crimes in the immediate past.
Democrats believe that they have nothing to gain personally and politically from prosecuting war crimes. They have been trying to sell people on yet another meaningless commission as a substitute for prosecution.
Not surprisingly, Obama aides are denying the story, here.
Of course, there is a very easy way to dispel any such rumors. Obama simply needs to say that any war crimes will be investigated and, if evidence if found of such crimes, prosecuted. That is what it means when Obama and Holder repeatedly say “no one is above the law.” The fact that they have struggled to simply commit themselves to enforce the law is highly worrisome and only serves to confirm the Hayden story.
For the full story, click here.
ROFL
That was nice. I’ll even stipulate it was skillful. But it’s just like your other attacks: futile and empty. You can’t name my strategies? That tell me all I need to know.
The following was to another of those you chose to use your brand of defense that will remain unnamed. Believe me should you be impressed I should have to revisit the whole of my life to determine what I had done wrong and hasten to make the necessary life changes.
Apparently your juvenile ranting were just to much to be repeated and thus the missive was rejected and no attempt will be made to include this time.
To a now unnamed source:
You have provided the second opinion with information, sources, and commentary but its value is lost to many if not most participants on this post. What a shame even after you made such an excellent effort to present your argument.
Your information is of no value but will not persuade those consumed with this premature cognitive commitment mindset. The following vernacular is typical when a position is challenged. It becomes outrageously ad homen and antidotal. I find it amazing when after reading many posts revealing excellent vocabularies, intellect, composition, and rational discussion when all are in mutual agreement but when contrarian views are presented the discussion becomes entirely emotion driven invective. Quite frankly it is more than a bit frightening to see such commentary and lack of discussion from individuals who imply they honor and support and defend the rule of law which requires and demands such discussion. mespo727272 and buda is laughing know my Greek representation of this unctuous chortling. I’m sticking with it. It FITS em like a glove.
And if quoting Sun is supposed to impress me? I know my enemy, fascist enabler. Otherwise, how could I so effectively get under troll skin? The fact I do with greater economy of language than any of your lot is just a testament to skill. My “incredible” or your “lack thereof”, take your pick.
Ad hominem is all a troll like you deserves, sport.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, January 22, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Go ahead and attack, Clinger. That is your M.O. If I cared what crazy people think I’d still be married and I’d register Republican.
Buddha Is Laughing: I would make a reply and not one entirely laced with the purely ad homen anecdotal commentary you present as defense but your site monitor would not permit me to post your own juvenile comments and thus your monitor practices what you and your ilk practice no contrarian views considered that could possibly challenge your no jury, only for lawyers safe zone “Turley lawyerly support site.”
I’ll just monitor from now to so I can better understand those of your ilk….
“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Gen Sun Tzu