President Obama: which broken laws will we reflect on and which will require retribution?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Because now we officially have 2 sets of rules. I think we need to know the distinction between the two.

[Deja Q]

1. 2 sets of rules? That's news to me...

[annabanana]

2. I think Rahm went off the reservation. .

Obama's language has been very very precise regarding the possibility of prosecutions... The very bluntness of Emmanuel's language makes me think he doesn't "get" nuance... Of course that's not his job.. in fact the LACK of nuance is his portfolio. .

[liberalmuse]

5. Excellent observation!

I believe you've hit it right on the head.

[annabanana]

7. We'll have to see what The Boss says when he gets back. . n/t

[Life Long Dem]

3. I say higher up than more troops or soldiers or the CIA.

That's how I feel about it. Why are the wrong ones always taking the blame for the higher ups that feel they are above the law?

[Clio the Leo]

4. Someone needs to do a poll thingy......

.... on how many of us have read the President's Statement on the Release of the Memos which is here...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-of-President-Barack-Obama-on-Release-of-OLC-Memos/

I'll admit that *I* haven't read the whole thing, but I'm relatively quiet on the matter.

And this is not a swipe at you Loose, I just dont feel like this post merits a whole new thread. :)

But I AM curious.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Thanks for the link and thanks for your comment

and thanks for your for your courtesy overall. If you think there's another thread that I should be part of, I usually try to comment in an exsisting thread rather than start a new one- so I may have missed it.

But what exactly in President Obama's statement do you think makes my OP not valid? (I did read the whole thing)

[Clio the Leo]

8. lol, I'm sorry, I was unclear...

when I said, "I just dont feel like this post merits a whole new thread. "

I meant "I just dont feel that MY post that I am writing to you merits a whole new thread."

I am curious as to how many people have read the statement, I wish someone would make a poll asking that, but my general low opinion of DU poll threads prevents me from doing it myself lol.

YOUR OP was valid .... mine was not relevant to what you were asking, I was just using it as an excuse. sorry ;)

[slipslidingaway]

9. Good question...

and will that be a valid defense for ordinary folks.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/17/prosecutions/index.html

"...This is a time for reflection, not retribution. . . . But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

That passage, more than anything else, is the mindset that has destroyed the rule of law in the U.S. and spawned massive criminality in our elite class. Accountability for crimes committed by political leaders (as opposed to ordinary Americans) is scorned as "retribution" and "laying blame for the past." Those who believe that the rule of law should be applied to the powerful as well as to ordinary citizens are demonized as the "forces that divide us." The bottomless corruption of immunizing political elites for serious crimes is glorified in the most Orwellian terms as "a time for reflection," "moving forward," and "coming together on behalf of our common future...



...UPDATE II: In comments, JKP1000 has good advice: the next time you're pulled over by a police officer for speeding, quote Barack Obama: "This is a time for reflection, not retribution." See if that works. If not, move to: "It's time to focus on the future, not look to the past." Criminal defense attorneys should try that on juries and judges, too."