Democrats Pushing Bybee Impeachment, Special Prosecutors

Look at the Far right Wing nuts Trying to Place the Blame the Torture on the Democrats Meanwhile BUSH Was A Republican, Congress REPUBLICAN And Democrats had no Power LAUGHABLE!You Just wont give up will ya?

Not unreasonable that Congress does its oversight job. As much as Republicans contort to somehow blame this – to blame EVERYTHING actually – on Democrats, writing the rationale supporting torture is a VERY different thing than trusting the Executive Branch’s morals too much during a period of war.

And so the end of our peaceful democracy begins…Let the democrats remember, when the Republicans eventually retake power and begin to seek retribution for the political assasinations of their bretheren under the prior democratic regime, that they fired the first shots.

What will really drive the Limbaugh-Lovers and right-wing haters nuts is the fact that President Obama’s job approval ratings remain colossally high.
Read ‘em and weep,

ProtectFreedom:”And so the end of our peaceful democracy begins…Let the democrats remember … that they fired the first shots.”
Rewriting history isn’t quite that easy. The record CLEARLY shows Republicans starting this one with one Mr. Kenneth Starr who saw fit to impeach a president for adultery. Also note the outpouring of support for Osama Bin Laden from Republicans in Congress at that time, who literally took to the floors of Congress to condemn Clinton’s clumsy but sincere attempt to kill Bin Laden as “Monica Missiles.”

Sure – impeach him – right after you impeach President Obama for murdering 3 Somali teenagers. After all responsibility starts at the top.
Bring it on!

“We don’t have a director of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Surgeon Genera,l or a Secretary of Health and Human Services in place yet, not to mention the dozens of staff members who would come with a new Secretary.”
So write your Republican Congressman and ask them why they are holding up these nominations..

jhw539 you have to be joking yes? Both sides of the aisle will fall hard if the whole affair is investgated. Partinship will mean nothing as it was a Democratic congress that approved the techniques used. Please think out your thoughts and comments since your leaving the door wide open for those that actually follow and retain the factual evidence.

Bybee wrote the “how to break the law” cover memo for the Bush Crime Family. Now the anti-Government, pro-torture party wants to protect him. Hmmm? Wonder why?

There should be complete Truth Commission on issues regarding treatment of terror detainees – lets start with Clinton Renditions and the briefings that the CIA gave to Congress. Either do it all or do nothing.

Fedup:”Partinship will mean nothing as it was a Democratic congress that approved the techniques used. Please think out your thoughts and comments since your leaving the door wide open for those that actually follow and retain the factual evidence.”
I stand by my original comment. The FACT is that Democrats are calling for these investigations. Not Republicans. I find that an interesting FACT.
It is not at all clear how much the Democratic Congress approved these tactics. Why is it Democrats are willing to have this investigated while Republicans are incensed at the suggestion?
Please supply some factual evidence that refute my ACTUAL COMMENT (that would mean showing Republicans pushing as hard as Democrats for investigations).

No, here is why we do not have a Secretary of Health and Human Services yet. She lied in disclosing her campaign contributions.
++++++++++++++++++++
No – The right-wing extremist the Republicans cower around have struck again. Sebelius is pro-choice. So if you happen to be in a city or school district on heightened alert because you have actual confirmed cases of swine flu in your area – just remember, the right wingers made the HHS nomination about abortion….
“Before Sebelius vetoed the abortion bill last week, she was probably headed toward confirmation with a vote in the high-70s” out of 99, one GOP Senate source told me. “Now that she’s vetoed that, she might be confirmed in the low seventies.” Another aide agreed, suggesting that there would probably be at least 25 Republicans in opposition, but no guarantees beyond that.
A Friday article in CQ Today suggested that Republicans, unable or unwilling to fight any of the more significant nominations, have concentrated instead on fighting the appointment of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Even Johnsen, former counsel for the National Abortion Rights Action League, is not being fought by lawmakers primarily over abortion, but over national security.” (NRO)

“I stand by my original comment. The FACT is that Democrats are calling for these investigations. Not Republicans. I find that an interesting FACT.”
Let’s have them. If you go hunting for bear, you best be ready to catch a bear.
Congress is notoriously stupid and ignorant. It would rue the day they began such a vendetta.
It will cut both ways and Obama will pay for his own crimes one day.

jwc539: You have a short timeline. Why don’t look back to the Reagan nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, where partisan, racist lying democrats (sorry if I am repetitive) threw hysterical temper tantrums in a disgusting attempt to taint both the president and the nominee? Sorry, but the democrats long ago became dominated by the Me-me-me, myopic self absorbed 1960s left, hell bent on the destruction of our peaceful republic. This mess: the lack of cohesion in our nation, the ad hominem attacks in lieu of substantive debate, the increasingly vitriolic dialog between right and left and now the descent into “Banana Republic”-ism is the democrats legacy to the nation.

if a sitting federal judge wrote the torture memorandum and rendered a philosophy which authorized illegal acts he should be impeached. this goes into the architecture of a policy which violated US and international law and broke international treaty agreements. this isn’t about abortion or taxes. it is about whether federal judges can write up judicial philosophies for the executive branch which are knowingly unconstitutional. Bye-bye, Bybee.

jwc539:
Your timeline is too short. Why not look even further to the Reagan nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court when the left had hyterical fits, tinged with racism, in a disgusting attempt to taint both candidate and the President. The history is clear, the current mess we face: lack of cohesion in our nation, increasingly vitriolic debate between left and right, and now our descent into “Banana Republic”-ism, is the greatest legacy of the democrat party.

Clinton sent prisoners to be tortured in egypt and morocco.
You don’t hear democrats calling for those renditions to be prosecuted.
In fact Obama made Panetta then clinton chief of staff his cia director.
Panetta was involved in sending prisoners to be tortured. Lets prosecute him then.
What about John Brennan Obama’s top terrorism advisor who worked under George Tenet at the CIA.
This hypocricy is breathtaking but that is what happens when illegal immigration makes this a one party country. There are no red lines democrats won’t cross.

Paige:”In that regard, if we can do it in a bipartisan fashion, I think that’s what we should do…”
Excellent! He’s a senator – where can I find his bill or formal request? I’m interested in more than just hot air, but an actual procedural movement towards walking the talk – like the Democrats are doing.
Everyone – Democrat or Republican – call your Congress critter and insist on a full, open investigation. This is our country, this is bipartisan, lets get it ALL out on the table.

The FACT is that Democrats are calling for these investigations. Not Republicans. I find that an interesting FACT.
_______________________
Interesting isn’t drjohn? Those quotes aren’t from this investigation – just the Republicans wanting a Congressional investigation of Clinton into the Marc Rich pardon and those abuses didn’t even violate the Geneva Convention or UN Convention Against Torture.

I wholeheartedly agree with JWH539, provided that the investigation is not artificially limited to the activities of the Bush administration. As a democratic people we are entitled to know what Clinto and Obama have done in our name as well.
Either that, or shut the whole investigation business down. This is one area in which we must act in a truly bipartisan manner, or not at all.

ProtectFreedom: “The fact is this judge is being attacked for purely partisan political gain by the left. If this proceeds, expect retaliation by the minority party in the future. ”
That is your opinion. There is a strong argument that he produced a falsified analysis of law under political pressure, which would be textbook ground for impeachment.
And how would the minority party retaliate more than they already are? It is already assumed that it takes a vote of 60 in the Senate to pass something – once upon a time, the filibuster was rare, not used on every single bill. The filibuster rate doubled in the Senate when the Democrats regained the majority.

jamescbuilder:”Yes, it should be bi-partisan and last time I looked those in power to do this are Democrats.”
Democrats cannot do it without Republican support. It is politically nonviable if it does not have true bipartisan support. Everyone in a red state, call your congressman. The Republicans are in an unique position to own this issue since many of their own will be mowed down in the process.
Conveniently, most of the Republicans in the sights of such a committee are out of power (unless you do drag it back into the Clinton era, which would provide excellent cover for current Democrats but be a bit pointless), so this could be the catharsis that returns the Republicans to relevancy.

Fascist Hyena—”This is one area in which we must act in a truly bipartisan manner, or not at all.” i agree with you completely. i think fairness and transparency is essential. as a democrat i would demand that any kind of commission look into both parties equally. extraordinary rendition is a pseudo-legal concept that makes me ill. certainly Clinton-era officials are as complicit as Bush-era officials are. and the current administration should be transparent in this area. if there is going to be an “executive privilege” arguement all administrations should be able to use it.

mj—you make an excellent point. this has to be bi-partisan; prosecutors must come from both parties or be agreed on by both parties. and this president must be held to the same standards as other presidents. those of us who are democrats absolutely must expect this process to be truly bi-partisan. it must be a fair process.

UK Times, January 23, 2009:
“Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed.
“Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven ‘foreigners’ – a term that usually means al-Qaeda – but locals also said that three children lost their lives.”
Instead of denying that he’s doing it, please tell us on what basis you think he is not committing simple murder, if not war crimes.

“Those quotes aren’t from this investigation – just the Republicans wanting a Congressional investigation of Clinton into the Marc Rich pardon and those abuses didn’t even violate the Geneva Convention or UN Convention Against Torture.”
Did we get that investigation? We actually don’t know what wwas violated.

Instead of denying that he’s doing it..
_________________________________
Obama campaigned on it! Where did he “deny” it?
I remember him calling McCain out on his statement of he’ll follow bin Laden to the ‘gates of hell” but not the ungoverned areas of northern Pakistan.
“Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.” (Reuters)

The strikes are against al-Qaeda not Pakistan. If he didn’t aggressively attack al-Qaeda you guys would be the first to criticize him for being soft on terror.

If an investigation is to occur, we will need to see Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Porter Goss, among others, under oath and subject to cross-examination and, where appropriate, prosecution for perjury. We will need to see any and all CIA notes of briefings of these people.
And if the investigation involves either the Clinton or Obama administrations, or both, then a Special Counsel will indeed be required.

“The strikes are against al-Qaeda not Pakistan.”
They are unquestionably killing civilians. In any event, under what authority is he launching these strikes, and why are they not criminal acts?

Enough…What is Torture: The Convention defines torture as, severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as….
Part of an Initial Report the United States submitted to the Committee against torture in 1999: Although there is not federal law criminalizing torture per sa, any act falling within the Convention’s DEFINITION of torture is clearly illegal and prosecutable everywhere in the country, for example as an assault or battery, murder or manslaughter, kidnapping or abduction, false arrest or imprisonment, sexual abuse, or violation of civil rights.
Key is how would you define torture…From the pictures, I am of the opinion that these acts are no more serious than “frat” pranks…Perhaps if it were any other President, that is a Democratic President, the left-wing of the party would remain silent and this would be considered an non-issue…Maybe that is why Obama is not pursuing the matter..It’s just not valid.. he would lose or many democrats would be outed..

Fascist Hyena – You conveniently left this out from the NY Times article:
“In Pakistan, the extensive missile strikes have been limited to the tribal areas, and authorities say they have killed 9 of the top 20 Qaeda leaders. American officials say the missile strikes have forced some Taliban and Qaeda leaders to flee south toward Quetta, a city in the province of Baluchistan, which abuts the parts of southern Afghanistan where recent fighting has been the fiercest.”

Here is the text of the October, 2002 AUMF:
“IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
Is there any evidence at all that anyone killed by these drone attacks is as described in that document? If so, how did the president make that determination before ordering their assassinations and the resultant deaths of civilians?

“Are you advocating calling off the war on terror?”
You seem to be a little out of date. The Obama administration does not acknowledge that there is a war on terror, and declines to use that term to describe whatever it is that it’s doing.
No, I don’t want to call it off–I just want it to be carried out lawfully. Those who carry it out unlawfully should be brought to justice, right?

“We were told Al Qaeda was in Iraq as well as WMD’s.”
Two successive presidents and a great mob of Democratic congressmen told us the exact same thing with respect to WMS, and I will quote them ad nauseum if you like.
We were told that there had been high-level contacts, but no operational relationship, between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and that was true.

“You seem to be a little out of date. The Obama administration does not acknowledge that there is a war on terror, and declines to use that term to describe whatever it is that it’s doing.”
I have to admit that I’m not that interested in what terminology this administration finds fashionable and to your credit you acknowledged that you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Whether or not most people will find the legality of torture completely analogous to the legality of air strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan is one matter, but claiming that Obama is actually attacking Pakistan is ridiculous.

You need to investigate Obama. His is putting our country at severe risk, lowering the funds and training for military and exposing pictures of so-called torture. When, not if, the next attacks happen, don’t blame Bush. It is Obama now with his lack of judgement and knowledge that will have American’s killed. IMPEACH OBAMA ALREADY!

“…stand trial and let the world court that we created make the decision: did they or did they not violate international laws? Are they guilty of crimes against humanity? Did they lie and fabricate false information to justify the invasion of Iraq?”
You are quite badly confused. There is no world court with any jurisdiction to hear any of the claims you just listed. Please do your homework.

The United States (and 40 or so other countries) have never joined the International Criminal Court. In any event, that Court will only hear cases that the courts of the nation in question refuse to hear.

Paige…”I do feel bad about those kids.”
Really? Than why question Fascists Hyena sincerity with the above response?
Posted by: Parallax View | Apr 28, 2009 1:22:21 PM
_______________________________
If you followed the post you would know it was her deep concern about the death of three children of terrorist to an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
With the recent release of the memos and the torture techniques used on detainees to force an Saddam/Al Qaeda link – I wouldn’t go there.

I reiterate my previous question? What the heck does the Geneva Conventions have to do with anything? Are the terrorist organizations, to which these enemy combatants belong, signatories to the conventions?

I wouldn’t go there??? And what dictatorial country are you writing from???

Move on and move forward. Focusing on the past is costly and consumes the ablity and resources of many.

“…torture techniques used on detainees to force an Saddam/Al Qaeda link.”
A more honest formulation would be “to determine whether there was such a link.” Any interrogator who did not seek to determine the answer to that question would have been negligent in the extreme.

I’ve read through all these blogs, and something kept jumping out at me. “Peaceful Republic.” In our nearly 233 years, I don’t think that we have ever been a peaceful republic, either with war against an oppressive king, war against the natives in our attempt to expand, war against ourselves, war to end all wars, a second great war, a police action, a war to stop the spread of communism, a cold war, a gulf war, a freedom war, an antiterrorism war, so many more wars throughout our years. Yet we are a peaceful republic! I love this country, but I have never diluted myself into thinking it peaceful. We are always full of controversy, but in that is where we gain our strength.

O Nation is too smart to set many precedents in this area..

all you ‘patriotic’ republicans simply need to follow words and policies of your former leader G.W. Bush:
“Just before launching his invasion of Iraq, President Bush went on national television to issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, urging him to leave his country within 48 hours. Bush also had this message for “all Iraqi military and civilian personnel”:
War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, “I was just following orders.”

FascistHyena: I want to be sure I understand the Obama position: If we capture those fellows we are after in Pakistan, they have access to the US courts to contest whether they are properly held in captivity. But if we see ‘em in the open, we can kill ‘em.
Have I got any of that wrong?
———-
No, that sums it up – when engaging on the field of battle, you use lethal force. Once hostile actors have surrendered to you or otherwise have been captured, they are your charges, under your care, and you follow long-established rules of humane treatment.
What’s hard to understand about that?
George Washington authorized capital punishment against any soldier who would abuse a prisoner.
George W. Bush authorized, through legal sophistry, abuse of prisoners.