What if ........ what if Obama released the torture memos and painted them as prelude to trials ....

[Stinky The Clown]

...... would those trying to defend his decision to *not* prosecute be cheering the other way? I have little doubt what the answer of many of them would be.

[MADem]

1. No one is "trying" to defend anything.

Here's the bottom line--when you do something that a LAWMAKING AUTHORITY tells you is legal, then it's legal.

You don't have to "like" that, but it is what it is.

Smoking a joint in the Senate cloakroom is illegal. Now, there are plenty of people who WISH it were legal, but there's that old saying: If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.

Obama is right on this issue because if he went any other way, George Bush could have changed any law on a whim--and BACKDATED IT to suit his purposes--to put your sorry ass in jail on a trumped-up charge.

No one is "cheering" about this. It's a plain and simple rule of law issue.

I doubt the law lecturer was sleeping at the podium while he taught all of his students about the CONSTITUTION.

[pocoloco]

2. WTF????

They have a "LAWMAKING AUTHORITY" in Germany??

[MADem]

6. Are you high? Who's talking about Germany....save you? nt

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Nuremberg threw that out

tokyo threw that out

International Jurisdiction if we refuse to do it

Got it now?

Simply following orders is not a valid excuse for following ILEGAL orders. It is not so in the US Military or the civilian government, don't care how many torturous "legal" arguments those who cheer the team will make

This is not unlike those bushbots cheering their team by the by

When the president does something wrong, no matter what "side" or party he is part of, he is wrong... PERIOD

[MADem]

11. OK, please tell me who's occupying the USA, and which "world war" we lost?

To whom does Obama "report?" Who's the "international boss" of our President? Where are the occupying troops in the streets, rounding up our citizens and trying them for war crimes?

We are a sovereign nation. We don't HAVE to suborn ourselves to international law. That may be unpleasant, but it is so. If people who committed crimes travel in jurisdictions where said law is enforced, they might have issues. But here in the USA, it's the Constitution that controls.

"Got it now?"

And calling me names like "bushbot" doesn't help to make your case. We aren't TALKING about international law here. We're talking about US law. So get over yourself and stop shooting the messenger.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Universal jurisdiction

we don't, somebody else will

Now if you have no problem with imperial policies that refuse to admit when we are in th wrong, we part company

[MADem]

32. There is no "universal jurisdiction." Who's President of this Universe?

Obi Wan Kanobe?

Come on. You can do better than that.

Obama did what he did because he, like many here do not, "gets" the law.

Sometimes, you have to let the guilty go free because you never, ever want to convict the innocent. I think he understands that better than some of the "Gimme a head or ten on a pike" crowd.

I don't agree with your argument or your logic at all. So I guess we part company. Pity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Perhaps you may want to look at the International treaties regarding torture

and the indictment by Spain of one President Pinochet

My dear...

[MADem]

34. And how many days did Pinochet spend in a Spanish prison?

Ah, yes. None.

You can indict a ham sandwich. That doesn't mean you're going to get a conviction.

No one is saying what Pinochet did during his tenure was "right," now. He was an abusive man who sanctioned murder and torture and who stole millions as well. It's just that "rule of law" trumped his conviction. See, the UK has a rule that you don't try people who are crazy or demented, and they ruled that Pinochet suffered from dementia and was unfit to be extradited. Consequently, he wasn't. He went home instead where he died at the ripe old age of ninety one, in a hospital not far from his comfortable home, not a Spanish prison.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. The Bybee memos came out several months AFTER the torture began

So, even your twisted logic won't work. They weren't following orders initially. The orders came out after.

According to Scott Horton on Democracy Now,...

"...there is a very strange factual issue here. President Obama says that we shouldn’t prosecute them because they relied on these memos. But a factual review is going to show that the CIA was using these techniques from April 2002, and these memos were commissioned and written, the first of them, in August 2002, so it’s quite clear, in fact, that CIA agents were out in the field doing these things, not relying on these memos, with the memos not even being in contemplation at that time. So, this argument is a fallacy."

Whoops! Sorry, but your Nuremberg Defense won't even fly.

[MADem]

31. You assume that there's no other paperwork. Why do you do that?

Why would anyone do that? You don't know that there's no other documentation--at DOJ or ELSEWHERE-- that predates that particular set of documents...yet you act like you do.

I seem to recall people trying to bullshit Ashcroft when he was drugged in the hospital to sign crap, and he refused to do it.
I suspect that there was a LOT of "paper" produced by DOJ, and likely other Cabinet offices as well, over the course of eight years, and we haven't seen the tip of the iceberg.

But go on and think what you want. "Cast around your asparagus" all day if it makes you feel important and special! Throw in a dose of "snide" too--that always encourages conversation!

I prefer to step back and look at the larger picture, pick the issues apart in a rational manner, use Occam's Razor in my deductive process, and speak dispassionately about these as yet still-occluded issues, instead of joining the "Ewwwww, Obama is bad and evil and, and, and...like Bush, only browner!!! Waaaah! Nuremburg!! Nuremburg!!! WAR Crimes!!! Waaah!" Club.

You do what you want. I really don't care what you think, see?

[bvar22]

20. So according to MADem...

When the President does it, that means it is not illegal if he gets a puppet lawyer to write him a note.

Got it.

[MADem]

30. No, but do be simplistic if you'd like. It clearly does something for your ego.

Obama's point is that you can't retroactively punish people for behaving in a particular way after receiving what they believed were good faith assurances from what turned out to be a CORRUPT Justice Department.

But hey--nuance too much for you? You stick with your preschool version.

[kentuck]

3. What was he thinking when he released them?

Surely he knew there would be a reaction??

The President can only do so much. It is up to the Congress and the rest of the people to decide what they want to do with leaders that torture and break the laws. He can't do it all.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Actually, he *can* do more .......

...... and this comment is not to argue the merits of that. That's for a different thread. To stay close on topic, I am confining my reply to your comment's specificity. "The president can only do so much".

The president could easily ask for a task force within the Justice Department to look into these matters to see if crimes were committed. We all know where that would lead. We all know he chose not to do it.

I am not arguing if he *should* do it ......... only that he *could* do it.

[kentuck]

5. But it would not be the wise path to take at this time.

His Atty-General and his entire Administration would be attacked by the right-wing media (Mainstream media) and talk radio and the other important issues would be displaced by the division created by such a decision. There is a time and place for everything. It should be one step at a time.

[lonestarnot]

8. And I love him enough to wait for the next step, so long as he takes it.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. The essence of that statement is that if we catch flack for doing the right thing, we won't do .....

...... the right thing.

I have followed your posts for years. I **know** you don't think that way, really.

[kentuck]

25. Would it be political suicide?

And if so, does he still have the responsibility to personally push for prosecution? Or should he delegate it to the Congress or the Justice Dept and try to stay politically alive just a bit longer? This is war, you know?? :-)

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Delegating it to DoJ is all anyone wants

Problem is, DoJ says the CIA guys are innocent because of orders. No matter that the orders, in some cases, predate the silly memo by months and months.

And I don't think anyone thinks Holder was a free agent when he made his statements about not prosecuting. What he said was virtually a certainty to have been official White House policy. Obama is nothing if not swift in correcting those who speak in ways he doesn't agree with or ways that harm him politically.

So we're sorta back to the same place.

Congress has shown itself to be as effective as a fart in a windstorm. Delegating ANYthing to them is the kiss of death.

[bvar22]

22. No.

President Obama is BOUND to prosecute by his Oath of Office, and at least four International Treaties.
Obama himself had admitted that Water Boarding is TORTURE.
There can be NO denying the fact that TORTURE has been committed by people and agencies of the US Government.

The next step is for Obama to have the Attorney General appoint an Independent Prosecutor to pursue a full investigation and public prosecution of ALL people and agencies that are involved in War Crimes.
After appointing an Independent Prosecutor, Obama and his administration need to step completely away from this explosive issue.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Obama needs to avoid the appearance of misconduct in protecting War Criminals.

My suggestion for Independent Prosecutor is Donald Iglesias.
He is a Republican with a record of Standing Up against the Bush Administration when pressured to pervert justice for political reasons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5484154

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Of course they would. Just as they're now cheering the Get Out of Jail Free card he issued.

The lame excuse that he "might" be shooting for the big fish to try doesn't hold water. Prosecutors don't tell the little fish, you're free, so now tell us what you know. They say, "You're going to prison, unless you tell us what you know."

Which doesn't even cover the fact that the now pre-pardoned CIA operatives are monsters deserving of trial. Or, that if they cling to the "just following orders" defense made famous by the likes of Eichmann, they should stand trial and leave the verdict to the courts whether that's a viable defense.

Nor do they acknowledge the ACLU's part in forcing Obama's hand in releasing the memos.

But, the worst of these, are the ones who blithely state that the torturers should walk free because it would be politically dangerous for the administration to try them. Which amounts to saying that criminals shouldn't stand trial because it's bad PR.

[EFerrari]

24. All of that. All of it.

:thumbsup:

After people sign off on letting torturers walk, what's left, exactly?

[Snazzy]

12. yep

and I've about reached my tipping point with the dis-info spinmeisters who jump in each of these threads to tell us it's all ok.

First off, The US sure as hell is subject to international laws. Article VI:

... all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

That includes the fucking Geneva Conventions, for example. And there's quite a bit more that prohibits torture in International law, which by our constitution, is the law of this land. That Bush abrogated treaties is one of the many many things that Du'ers were pissed off about way back when. Remember? The notion that might makes right and since we are the sole superpower we can do whatever we like? Well, that was bullshit then and is bullshit now. We are a nation of laws.

Secondly, I've seen maybe 50 people try to correct this spin, I'll just simply state to add my voice: The AG/OLC doesn't make fucking laws. I'd put it in all caps if I was one of those people.

It would be nice and courteous if the fact-free, yet loud and ever present people who are apparently so desperate to tell us what we should all think to be proper citizens and proper Obama supporters would confine themselves to GD-P so that actual intelligent discussion can be had elsewhere.

[Bluebear]

15. +1

[pat_k]

14. For many, politics has turned into exercise of electing someone to "save us". . .

. . .and then cheering on the chosen savior. Electoral politics is the be all, end all, instead of being the starting point of an ongoing process in which we seek to elect those we deem most reasonable, and then engage those who get elected in the fight to save ourselves.

When one has worked so hard to elect a savior, everything that person does must be for our "salvation." And when the savior appears to be doing something immoral or derelict, it must be part of some secret plan to ultimately do the right thing.

It's the difference between being a citizen cheerleader and being a citizen lobbyist.

[LostInAnomie]

17. I honestly think he's releasing them to test the waters...

... and gauge the public's reaction. If they are outraged and there a groundswell for prosecution starts he might do something. If not, at least the info will be out there and Bush will have a very hard time cleaning up his legacy.

[Stinky The Clown]

19. Please read post number 11 in this thread and then see if you still feel this way.

And what matter is it regarding the legacy of the Worst President In American History?

People already are outraged. And now the trump crads have all been played before the game's evens tarted.

Please read post 11 and then come back and comment.

[havocmom]

26. To prosecute the people who made the decisions (and excuses), he needs THE PEOPLE

The CIA can take out a President. It's been done. But they can't do much about a groundswell of insistence on prosecution for those in the big chairs who said it was OK & do it. When enough people scream for investigation/prosecution, they will have to let it happen. They can't kill all of us.

I do think the release (coyly dragging heels a bit on it) was in hopes We The People let the bad spooks (not all are bad) know that things WILL change and the decision makers and enablers of the torture will have to be held accountable.

He knows you can't stop campaigning for change just because you are in office. He looks to be still working the crowd and inspiring people to demand what needs to be done. Those who think it should have been done already are just not paying attention to HOW things get done.

[EFerrari]

27. Agree. He needs all the support he can get.

What he needs to do is dangerous on many levels, imho. He needs every ounce of support he can get from ICRC, UN, ACLU and ALL OF US.

[D-Lee]

29. Agreed -- and to let the information unfold

The Obama Administration has a lot on its plate right now.

The torture information will keep on coming out and there is lots of time to take action on the issue. I see no reason to think that we know, or can foresee, the final position the Administration will take.

And the official statement is really pretty limited -- in a context in which ethics inquiries against the legal opinion writers are ongoing and no statement has been made releasing policy makers from responsibility. And there are ever so many inquiries going on in Congress and in international forums and tribunals ...

More things will happen and DUers will keep the pressure on ...

[HamdenRice]

21. You've asked maybe the best question in DU's history!!!

because some of us have some experience with legal claims and defenses.

Most of the posters claiming that certain (not all) torturers had been handed a "defense" that made prosecution difficult to impossible. We did not say the defendants were not guilty.

We also said that the memos plus the Obama statement seemed to carve out a very, very large group of defendants, indeed, who were liable to prosecution under the Obama statement.

That said, I think the memos and administration statement are actually "preludes to trial" or at least "preludes to prosecution."

Obama issued a statement of fact that certain narrow classes of people could not be prosecuted. But in those same statements he was showing who could be prosecuted.

[ProSense]

23. There is no "what if"

Read

Who believes that the world is going to turn a blind eye to memos that prove the U.S. government sanctioned torture? Memos that detail horrific acts including hundreds of incidence of waterboarding (Khmer Rouge style)?