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
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.
(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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Slarti,
I’m done with a first draft of my homework, Doc. Check here. I’m drafting platform planks as a kind of mental kata for attacking the Statement of Principles (which I hope to have done over the weekend).
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/07/13/oakland-police-announce-they-will-not-respond-to-various-crimes-like-burglary-grand-theft-and-other-crimes/#comment-144583
Jill said:
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.
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.
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.
Bob,
That’s a great quote from The Great One.
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.
Ed Norton: Hey Ralph; mind if I smoke?
Ralph Cramden: I don’t care if ya burn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.