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
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.
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.
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?
Some people do what is the heart, some do whats best for the wallet, some do what right, all the time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jill,
You are absolutely right and there are more and more citizens coming towards your point of view than moving away from it.
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?)
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
Relate it however you want. Peace.
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.
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?
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.
Just being anti is not enough to effect change.
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.
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.