Eric Holder v. America's legal obligations - Greenwald

[slipslidingaway]

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

Can anyone reconcile these?:

Barack Obama, yesterday:

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.

Eric Holder, yesterday:

It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department....


Convention Against Torture -- signed by Reagan in 1988, ratified in 1994 by Senate...

Geneva Conventions, Article 146...

Charter of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, Article 8...

U.S. Constitution, Article VI...


...If, as Barack Obama proclaimed yesterday, "the United States is a nation of laws" and his "Administration will always act in accordance with those laws," isn't it the obligation of those opposing prosecution to justify that position in light of these legal mandates and long-standing principles of Western justice? How can they be reconciled?"

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. It can't.. unless you realize what people outside the US know

this is Imperial policy, and EMPIRES justify anything to maintain the empire

But the short answer is, we are not a nation of laws... no matter how many contorsions we see

[slipslidingaway]

3. President Obama has the opportunity to make a real change....

from words to actions.

That is the sad statement...

"unless you realize what people outside the US know"

:(

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Rought translation from listening to Mexican Reporters

yesterday

"It is impressive to see the US President, it is like the ancient caesars, like Julius Caesar visiting the Empire."

They know what Americans refuse to see

[slipslidingaway]

8. Wow, thanks n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. You welcome... going outside the US every so-often is an eye

opener

[slipslidingaway]

12. And I would like to do it more often :) n/t

[Buzz Clik]

2. More of this fake "What the F**K?!" bullcrap.

Why are the residents of DU so dense? What part of this do you not understand?

The Office of Legal Counsel was established to provide legal advice and set legal precedent for the executive branch. It makes sense to have such an office because our laws are mind-numbingly complex. When someone like John Woo said that based on his interpretation, something is legal, it becomes legal until that interpretation is legally challenged or reversed.

It is not subtle. It is not difficult, and it is exactly why we couldn't impeach Bush and Cheney and why prosecuting those torturers in the CIA is out of the question.

You don't have to like it, and insulting me won't change the facts.

[plcdude]

4. good luck

with that perspective.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Nuremberg then was a trial of the victors

we know... some folks are dense as to what morality is

But the logic of empire is one that you embrace

[slipslidingaway]

7. Ashcroft Suggests CIA Started Torturing, Then Sought Legal Cover

Some (obviously) forgotten context regarding the release of the additional torture memos

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5473057&mesg_id=5473057



Chris Floyd: Tortured Logic: Obama Writes Off Old Crimes While Promoting New Outrages

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=441187&mesg_id=441187

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1743-tortured-logic-obama-writes-off-old-crimes-while-promoting-new-outrages.html

"Glenn Greenwald points out the "smoking gun" memo that destroys Obama's entire defense -- for it is a defense -- of the CIA tortures: A signed statement by Steven Bradbury, one of the key paper-pushers in the torture regimen. Bradbury told the front-line torturers:


Given the paucity of relevant precedent and the subjective nature of the inquiry, however, we cannot predict with confidence that a court would agree with this conclusion ."

[HereSince1628]

9. Well, we certainly WOULD NOT want the Obama admin to legally challenge that, WOULD WE?

What the F**K?! is so dense about that?

[Supersedeas]

10. maybe you should consider the legal justification used by the Nazis, and the result:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/12/0082303

The Americans and Soviets also wanted to prosecute the people who had created the legal framework for the Nazi regime, but British and French leaders objected. Consequently, the United States, acting on its own, convened a separate Nuremberg tribunal to try lawyers, judges, and legal policymakers. In doing so, it established the principle that policymakers who overrode the mandatory prohibitions of international law against harming prisoners in wartime could be prosecuted as war criminals, no matter how many internal memos they had written to the contrary.


Calling someone dense...then having the self-righteous indignation to claim "insulting me won't change the facts." Facts can be funny--if you actually care to consider them instead of insulting everyone around you for not agreeing with your LEGAL interpretation.

I know, I know...actually substantiating your position with some authority...is just so dense.

[bvar22]

14. "If the president does it....

..that means it is not illegal."
All he has to do is get his sockpuppet lawyer to write him a note.

Thanks, Buzz Clik.
Once again you have opened my eyes.

[slipslidingaway]

13. Thanks for the replies and the recs n/t

[slipslidingaway]

15. Update - both praise and criticism

Actually it is the next post, link...

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


"...Purely as an analytical matter, releasing the OLC memos and advocating against prosecutions are two separate acts. It's perfectly coherent to praise one and condemn the other. There is an unhealthy tendency to want to make categorical, absolute judgments about the persona of politicians generally and Obama especially ("I like him"/"I don't like him"; "I trust him/I don't trust him") rather than case-by-case judgments about his specific acts. "Like" and "trust" are sentiments appropriate for one's friends and loved ones, not political leaders...


Beyond those generalities, I think the significance of Obama's decision to release those memos -- and the political courage it took -- shouldn't be minimized. There is no question that many key factions in the "intelligence community" were vehemently opposed to release of those memos. I have no doubt that reports that they waged a "war" to prevent release of these memos were absolutely true...


Still, as a matter of political reality, Obama had to incur significant wrath from powerful factions by releasing these memos, and he did that. That's an extremely unusual act for a politician, especially a President, and it deserves praise....


The most criticism-worthy act that Obama engaged in yesterday was to affirm and perpetuate what is the single most-destructive premise in our political culture:

...This is what Obama said in affirming that rotted premise:

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."