Skip to main content

Support independent cartooning: join Sparky's List—and be sure to visit TT's Emporium of Shopping Fun!

Originally posted to Comics on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.


Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That's pretty sanctimonious. n/t (14+ / 0-)

    What the Right Wing calls "being politically correct" is what my mama used to teach me was "being polite".

    by Walt starr on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:03:54 AM PDT

  •  This is so awful and true (18+ / 0-)

    but I still think Obama was put between a rock and a hard place on this.  We all know that opening a real investigation into this goes right to the top, right to Bush and Cheney themselves.  So Obama either dances around it and tries to move past it or he becomes the first president to come to office and jail the previous president.  It's absolutely what he should have done in the name of justice and the constitution.  But it may have torn the country apart.

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:07:40 AM PDT

    •  It would have eaten up his first term, too. (9+ / 0-)

      We wouldn't have even gotten Obamacare out of it, and there's no guarantee any actual meaningful convictions would have resulted (look at Iran-Contra, for instance).  

      Not to mention--- a lot of Americans are happy to hear that we tortured "terrorists"; that they got what was coming to them (presumption of guilt included).  They wouldn't have seen the big deal, as they don't now.

      Nobody deserves poverty.

      by nominalize on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:16:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So do it after the GOP took over (11+ / 0-)

        and nothing was going to get done anyway. It isn't as if the GOP is going to cooperate less if there's a torture investigation.

        No War but Class War

        by AoT on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:35:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  so then, a republican majority is going to conduct (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Just Bob, RightHeaded, MixedContent

          congressional investigations into bush torture?

          "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

          by Sybil Liberty on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:47:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Congress is the only branch of government (8+ / 0-)

            that can investigate things now?

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:59:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Those are the only public investigations (0+ / 0-)

              to which we would be privy. And let's be honest, public investigations are what you seek.

              Any further investigations, if they are to be taken seriously, we would have no clue about.

              "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

              by Sybil Liberty on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:05:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is no reason that the executive branch (6+ / 0-)

                can't do an investigation and make the results public, no reason at all.

                No War but Class War

                by AoT on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:09:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you talking about DoJ? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  ...maybe they are. Unless the admin. wanted to make a political football of it, which they should not, we would have no way of knowing.

                  Anyway, call me naive, but that is my hope.

                  Investigating Torture: An Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega

                  "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                  by Sybil Liberty on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:23:37 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Allowing the DOJ to prosecute crimes (7+ / 0-)

                    is "making a political football of it"?

                    There's no "maybe they are".  The President announced just months into his first term that every sick fuck who tortured on Bush's orders was going to go free.

                    The UN should give Iraq a restraining order against the US.

                    by JesseCW on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:57:05 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no. what I said was, "maybe they are"... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AoT, smartalek

                      Of Black Holes and Radio Silence

                      Under existing federal law, in other words, the notion of a special prosecutor who would be entirely free from political and institutional influence is illusory. Given that fact - and that it is ordinarily an extremely dumb, not to mention unethical, idea to announce investigations - when an administration does announce that it is naming a "special counsel" of any sort, it is largely a public-relations maneuver. The president thereby appears to be committed to the rule of law, but is, in fact, parking an extremely inconvenient problem in a remote and inaccessible lot.  

                          Once this happens, all who wish to avoid the issue have a ready excuse. The president can refuse to comment because there is an ongoing criminal investigation. (Remember Bush's press person, Scott McClennan?) And members of Congress from either party can look the other way, because - again - there is an ongoing criminal investigation. It's a perfect dodge.

                      And then I said, "that is my hope".
                      There is no statute of limitations on war crimes,and if they're going to be tried I want them prosecuted to the fullest goddam extent of the law. Even if I don't live to see it.  

                      crystal clear

                      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                      by Sybil Liberty on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:16:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  So you're happy about a secret investigation (0+ / 0-)

                    that no one will ever hear about?  I can't help but be reminded of the court trials where the government declared the evidence that be used to win against them is secret due to national security.

                    "I'm not a number" --84,414

                    by BentLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:33:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  *IF* the DoJ were running an investigation, (0+ / 0-)

                      on bush war crimes

                      note: upper case IF,

                      how likely is it they're going to run it past your excellency for approval?

                      Suggest you read the link posted above, Of Black Holes and Radio Silence

                      or otherwise just continue channeling your ODS through the comics happy

                      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

                      by Sybil Liberty on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:48:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  From the over-the-top answer you gave (0+ / 0-)

                        which was also non-responsive, I'm assuming that's a yes.

                        "I'm not a number" --84,414

                        by BentLiberal on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:52:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I think that basically you are right, Sybil. But (0+ / 0-)

                        the only way to get this DOJ off it's lazy, sorry ass is for Obama to give a direct order to Holder that he is to prosecute the war criminals -period! Yes, it would be the nastiest and messiest political mess this country has ever seen but if there is a way for officials at the UN and The Hague to intervene and take an active role in the investigation and subsequent trials, we would not have to shoulder the whole thing alone. Interesting and daunting to contemplate. And because of all the reasons and objections that we see here in the comments, ones like It would tear the country apart (more so than it already is?), The GOP wouldn't allow it (would they have a choice?) etc. these criminals, and they are WELL AWARE of who they are, can live out their years on Easy St, knowing full well that no one is going to do anything about it. For shame, America, for shame!

                  •  An Interesting Article... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    To bad nothing was done about the crimes that were committed under the Cheney/Bush administration.  However I was surprised that there was a statute of limitations placed on these crimes, if one was to have been placed, it should have been the same as with murder.

                    I loved it when the ones who were promoting water boarding, during that time, were saying that it was not torture.  But, when a bunch of us Vet's, including some former POW's, suggested that they undergo it they all refused or, what was that word, obfuscated it.  It shocked me that McCain, a former POW, would support such crimes.

                    When assigned to the 1st MarDiv during the Nam War, I was unfortunate enough to get 'captured' and part of that training was to be water boarded, after about a minute or so I was ready to tell them everything I knew just to get them to stop.  What we went through was no where close to what was really done during that type of 'enhanced' interrogation.  So, yes crimes of this nature, involving torture, should not have a statute of limitations time period on it.

                    I was also surprised that they were not brought before the courts in The Hague, for these 'war' crimes.  I still believe they should be.  But, what do I know, I am just a veteran who was tasked with defending this country, her people and the Constitution.

                    /s/ A Proud Honorable Disabled American Veteran, 1970-1994, Combat 1991 - 13th EvacHosp

        •  Maybe Darrell Issa could look into that and see... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GreatLakeSailor, sunbro

          Maybe Darrell Issa could look into that and see if he can find it in his heart to expose the guilty(tee hee). Now that the Bengazi report is done he'll have time on his hands--the devil's playground.

          •  Yep. That's Darrell Issa. (0+ / 0-)

            Not a political bone in his body....

            Issa is just an all-American good guy. He's just SWELL! Golly gee, what a great guy!

            But "some people say" that Darrell Issa likes child porn, and wants to join ISIS to hurt Americans. What do you say we investigate Issa for YEARS AND YEARS and harass him just as he harasses Democrats (like Senator Joseph McCarthy did) to return the favor? Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!!

            -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

            by sunbro on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:59:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Let's be realistic, though (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          "nothing was going to get done anyway"

          That's easy for us to say in hindsight, but it wasn't obvious at the time.

          And like I said, most Americans were happy to torture terrorists, and ship them off to Guantánamo.  This isn't like Watergate, where nearly everyone (except Lynyrd Skynyrd apparently) thought Nixon was in the wrong, and provably so.

          The thing is, investigations were all cost and no benefit, even if done by DoJ.  Because there was literally zero chance of bagging any big fish.  The media (conservative as it is) would constantly wear public opinion down.  And the next Republican administration would just pardon them anyways.

          There's also the diplomatic problem:  Any investigation would have very unwelcome consequences in the parts of the world where we still needed calm.

          a) In diplomacy, as in ordinary life, there's a huge difference between everyone knowing your sins, and you copping to them.  An investigation would do just that.
          b) Opening up about rendition would show which of our allies in the Middle East were involved, putting those friendly régimes at risk from their own population.
          c) It could also show that we used bases in allied countries who specifically said not to use them for this practice.  They don't like that.
          d) It could also reveal intelligence networks and such, which are hard to build and easy to eliminate (see the Valerie Plame scandal, for which, again, no one was brought to justice).

          Now that years have passed, and Mideast rage has been shifted towards Israel and Syria... the president makes a small admission that gets quickly swept off the front page.

          Which leads to the most dangerous part of all:  Americans are very adamant about "solving" problems and "fixing" faults by pretending they never existed.  Our image as faultless shining protector of the universe™ is so deeply embedded in our national psyche that even mentioning true skullduggery (like overthrowing this government or that overseas) violates a harsh taboo and is instantly savaged as "Blaming America" or "Anti-American", and so forth.  

          Politicians, as a result, are very happy to stroke the national ego, telling us what a majority of us wants to hear--- not that we're flawed but getting better, but that we were never flawed in the first place.  If Mr Obama hadn't learned that lesson a long time ago, he never would have made it to the Oval Office in the first place.

          Nobody deserves poverty.

          by nominalize on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:54:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The idea that a torture investigation is going (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lotlizard, Brown Thrasher

            to cause a problem in places like Egypt, where we "need calm" is absurd. We've already propped up abusive, autocratic  regimes in the places we need calm and most of the places we "need calm" are currently anything but. A torture investigation is not going to surther inflame Iraq, for example.

            And I'm perfectly aware of why the president doesn't investigate torture, I'm talking specifically about the claim that it would somehow shut down the government. You didn't address that at all.

            But apparently investigating torture is one of the worst things that could possibly happen to the US, far worse than the actual torture itself.

            No War but Class War

            by AoT on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 01:06:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  meaningful convictions never occur (0+ / 0-)

        when a viable case isn't built by prosecution. A viable case is never built for political purposes within public view. "(look at Iran-Contra, for instance)".   A case built for political purposes would have been meaningless to "folks" who lost everything in 2008, those having been tortured by Wall Street.

        BUT...yes, the rest of us "folks" should keep yelling.

        Keep YELLING, FOLKS!

        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

        by Sybil Liberty on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:43:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Americans wanted revenge after 9/11 (8+ / 0-)

        Not justice. REVENGE. They didn't care that the military was invading the wrong damn country, or that a lot of the detainees in Gitmo weren't even terrorists, or that TORTURE IS AN INEFFECTIVE MEANS OF INTERROGATION.* They were hurting, so they wanted to make someone else hurt.

        *Why aren't more people bringing this up?!

        'I've given that viewpoint a lot of thought, sir, and reached the following conclusion: arseholes to the lot of 'em, sir.'

        by TB Tabby on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:52:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Americans"? You really need to abandon (5+ / 0-)

          the notion that you're equipped to speak for us.

          The UN should give Iraq a restraining order against the US.

          by JesseCW on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:58:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  As if it was yesterday, I remember at about noon.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nominalize, tardis10

          on 12Sept2001, standing outside the place I worked at the time and talking to an older gal, coworker, not knowing her real well we got along fine - very good work cooperation, quite pleasant personal interactions.

          Scene: light industrial park near Wisconsin-Illinois state line, more-less in the flight path between ORD and MKE - meaning fairly regular north-south air traffic.  Stunningly cloudless blue sky, maybe 74F; the perfect early autumn day.  A lone aircraft passes overhead bearing ESE.  Definitely not commercial aviation.  Very quiet.

          GLS: This is eery.  No planes.
          (enter plane from WNW)
          Silence between us until the plane goes out of view.
          OGCW: Military?
          GLS: That'd be my guess.
          OGCW: Good, I hope they're going to nuke the entire Middle East.
          GLS: So kill more of their innocents than they killed of ours?  I hope they don't.
          OGCW: Why not?  They don't play by the rules.  Why should we?
          GLS: Because we're better than that.
          OGCW: Fuck that!  I ain't better than that.
          (and yes, she really said that)
          GLS: I'm better than that.  I'm more afraid of what we'll do and what we'll become, than I am of the terrorists.  We'll find 'em.  We'll get 'em.  But at what cost?

          That's the last time we spoke socially.  We were pleasant coworkers for about another year until her job, one of seven or so purchasers for the company, her whole department, got moved to Juarez Mexico, where all the assembly had been moved (parts were all from China by then too, before that 90%+ local), production engineering, quality, half of design engineering.  She knew, everyone knew, time was short (job-wise) and the economic squeeze was on.  Stressed people tend toward bad decisions.

          The only reason the 1% are rich is because the 99% agree they are.

          by GreatLakeSailor on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:32:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  People assume torture works... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MixedContent, GreatLakeSailor

          'Why aren't more people bringing this up?!"

          Because they watched 24, where torture works every time.

          Even if it defies common sense--- if you knew you only had to hold out for an hour, or a day, for the long-awaited strike to occur, even any of us could manage that... or at least give some red herrings to stall.  

          Nobody deserves poverty.

          by nominalize on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:41:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think this was a majority opinion. (0+ / 0-)

          I think at the time there were a lot of unknowns, take GITMO for example. A lot of Americans weren't exactly sure who was being held there (Bush also quietly released quite a few eventually to no faux outrage from the legislature).  The administration wasn't upfront about many of the faces except for the big Al Qaeda catches.

          There was a lot of outrage about Abu Ghraib, Americans as a whole were completely horrified by what was discovered there and humiliated by the actions.  The disciplinary hearings after the fact were minimal by any degree.

          It was something President Obama also reiterated as he ran for office and signed a bill outlawing torture on his second day in office along with the order to close GITMO as a detainee facility (though if I'm not mistaken, and I may be, I believe there was a SCOTUS case that overturned the Yoo 'legal memo' earlier).

          Charlie Crist for Florida Primary date: August 26, 2014, Election Date: November 4, 2014

          by aimeehs on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 02:31:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And don't forget the economy.... (6+ / 0-)

        was in freefall when Obama took office.  The stimulus wasn't perfect, but getting anything through congress while investigating and prosecuting the previous administration would have been nigh impossible.  I'm not saying he made the right choice, but all of his options sucked.

        I don't know what's been trickling down, but it hasn't been pleasant---N. Pelosi

        by Russycle on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:12:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Say we don't prosecute the former president. (5+ / 0-)

      Should that mean that no one else is prosecuted?

      Marx was an optimist.

      by psnyder on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:19:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the catch (0+ / 0-)

        Once you start up the ladder, where does it stop?  Cheney was ordering torture sessions on a White House phone.  A real investigation and prosecution puts the top guys behind bars.  

        When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

        by Sun dog on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why would that be a bad thing if they committed... (3+ / 0-)

          Why would that be a bad thing if they committed crimes?

          •  It's one intolerable precedent or another (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Obama is leaving the precedent of torture in place.  He could have set a new one where an incoming president uses the power of office to jail the previous one.  I know there's a certain appeal to that but it raises a question of if our system would survive for very long.  We rely on a certain civility in one party giving up power every time they lose an election.  If Obama lets justice run its course on Bush/Cheney, relinquishing office to the opposition party becomes a high risk proposition for ANY president.

            When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

            by Sun dog on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:16:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you prefer the precedent (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy, Brown Thrasher

              where the president allowed to get away with any crimes committed in office? That wouldn't be damaging to the country.

              I guess Nixon was right. When the president does it it's legal. Guess he should've stayed in office.

              •  Do I prefer it? (4+ / 0-)


                Check the date on this.  


                 I just acknowledged that there is a conundrum here in choosing either path.  

                When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

                by Sun dog on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:24:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, Sun Dog, an enormous, colossal conundrum. (0+ / 0-)

                  But does that mean that our known criminals should be allowed to hide behind all these conundrums? Of course, whichever Pres initiated an investigation of this magnitude, with the ensuing result that there would be charges filed, trials heard, verdicts delivered and sentences imposed, we know that the opposition party would be elected the next time around. Is that such a horrible thing? At what price do the Dems hang on to their incredibly tenuous political lead right now, which is nothing more or less than what Hans Brinker faced?

            •  You have a... curious... definition... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Brown Thrasher, MixedContent

              ...of "civility."
              And of "using the power of the office," for that matter.
              In my book, having the Justice Dept bring charges against someone who is accused of some pretty major crimes, and jailing them if, but only if, they are found guilty under due process of law, in an independent court of appropriate jurisdiction, would constitute neither a lack of "civility," nor "using the power of the office" of the Presidency.  It would simply be the appropriate elements of the executive branch fulfilling their duty to uphold the law.
              But my dictionary dates from the last millennium, so it might well be obsolete by now.
              And, of course, this does explain the Publicans' latest trope -- their accusations of Pres. Obama's "lawlessness."  As always, whatever they accuse any Democrat / liberal of doing is exactly what they're currently engaged in themselves.

    •  the whole thing... (8+ / 0-)

      The whole thing could/should have been directed to an independent counsel.  

      That way, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and their crooked administration all would have begun the life sentences they earned; President Obama could have moved forward with his hands unstained; and the Republicans would have been beaten to submission, figuratively, knowing that their crimes would not be tolerated.  

      Instead, the Republicans only became emboldened, Mr. Cheney is free to speak in public (along with his repulsive family members) and granted the "gravitas" and "credibility" of an "elder statesman" and all Americans outside the Washington/MIC area and the FOX pundits as well as people around the world must suffer, while all these fools rake in our dollars and ignore the people they are supposed to represent and help along, providing sound infrastructure and decent schools and protecting us from voter suppression and nuts with guns.  

    •  "But it may have torn the country apart." (13+ / 0-)

      Country already is torn apart. Justice should prevail.

      "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

      by rocksout on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:55:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sun dog, smartalek, TexasTom

      Same thing would have happened if Geral Ford had prosecuted Nixon; we wouldn't have had time for anything else.

    •  Good think he didn't do it, then. The country (3+ / 0-)

      is clearly very united as a result of that pragmagical decision.

      The UN should give Iraq a restraining order against the US.

      by JesseCW on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 08:55:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, it would have torn the country apart to br... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Brown Thrasher

      Yes, it would have torn the country apart to bring criminals to justice. It always does.

      President Obama is the first president I know of to have his good conscience held hostage by the presidency. If only he wasn't beholden to the presidency he would do the right thing.

    •  Fiat justitia ruat caelum (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher


    •  He would have been destroyed... (0+ / 0-)

      but largely because he would be seen as just another Uppity N**.  The world will never improve as long as those who have power claim to be above the law.  Look at Putin, at BiBi, and at Bush.  Look at the various leaders all over the place...leading countries, leading cities, and leading bands of terrorists.  There is no jail anywhere large enough to hold all of them, and The Hague would be overrun with so many trials.

    •  excuse me!!! (0+ / 0-)

      "But it may have torn the country apart."  That's spewing the same shit Gerald Ford gave as an excuse for pardoning "Tricky Dick" Nixon.  Try that in front of the Judge if God forbid you ever come into Court...

  •  You nailed it (14+ / 0-)

    Obama deserves what he gets in "Press Conference".  Now, if we could just move on and prosecute, jail, and punish those who tortured "folks" in our name.  

  •  Nothing to see here folks. (11+ / 0-)

    Move along.  Move along.

    I'm not always political, but when I am I vote Democratic. Stay Democratic, my friends. -The Most Interesting Man in the World

    by boran2 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:10:50 AM PDT

  •  Sanctimonious = Purity (17+ / 0-)

    We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good ... or something like that.

    Onward and upward.

    A sanctimonious member of the Professional Left since 1967.

    by slatsg on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:12:12 AM PDT

    •  A good point .... but ... (8+ / 0-)

      The reasoning given for not investigating and prosecuting was that the country needed to move past those events.

      That were an investigation to be held, the country would be divided, become partisan, nothing would get done ...

      Republicans thanked the President for that by making their only priority be that he become a single-term President, and that they would fight all progress tooth and nail.

      Sure we got Obamacare, and some other good stuff ... Yet the income gap has widened, the country has no moral compass whatsoever, and Congress couldn't have become more divided than it is at present.

      Sometimes you have to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do .... an attitude that candidate Obama supported.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:33:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's just speculation (4+ / 0-)
        That were an investigation to be held, the country would be divided, become partisan, nothing would get done ...
        Speculation that points to doing nothing as the logical course of action.

        We'll never know what could have been - the easiest and least controversial path has been chosen, and our hands remain bloody for the world to see.

        •  Of course it was speculation (0+ / 0-)

          Those were the reasons given by the President.

          Personally I think it was the wrong decision, but I too am speculating.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:55:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That isn't how I remember it (8+ / 0-)
            To see what a farce this is, it is worthwhile briefly to review the timeline of how Obama officials acted to shield Bush torturers from all accountability. During his 2008 campaign for president, Obama repeatedly vowed that, while he opposed "partisan witch-hunts", he would instruct his attorney general to "immediately review" the evidence of criminality in these torture programs because "nobody is above the law." Yet, almost immediately after winning the 2008 election, Obama, before he was even inaugurated, made clear that he was opposed to any such investigations, citing what he called "a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards".

            Throughout the first several months of his presidency, his top political aides, such as the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, publicly – and inappropriately – pressured the justice department to refrain from any criminal investigations. Over and over, they repeated the Orwellian mantra that such investigations were objectionable because "we must look forward, not backward". As Gibbs put it in April 2009, when asked to explain Obama's opposition, "the president is focused on looking forward. That's why."

            On 16 April 2009, Obama himself took the first step in formalizing the full-scale immunity he intended to bestow on all government officials involved even in the most heinous and lethal torture. On that date, he decreed absolute immunity for any official involved in torture provided that it comported with the permission slips produced by Bush department of justice (DOJ) lawyers which authorized certain techniques. "This is a time for reflection, not retribution," the new president so movingly observed in his statement announcing this immunity. Obama added:

            "[N]othing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past … we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

            Nothing will be gained...from holding people accountable for TORTURE? Mushy mouthed nothingness.
    •  HOLD ON, DANG IT! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade, slatsg

      I'm an emopgroggie, not a purity troll!!!!!

  •  ... (22+ / 0-)
    "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something."
    President Obama
    Prague April 5, 2009

    We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game - Dyin' 'n' goin' to heaven in-a Jesus' name. Bob Marley

    by BOHICA on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:17:02 AM PDT

  •  Welcome back to DK, TT. (10+ / 0-)

    I had to go find you at the Nation, but find you I did.

  •  President Obama... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg, BenderRodriguez, sunbro, aimeehs

    Damned if he does, damned if he don't.

    "These 'Yet To Be' United States" --James Baldwin--

    by kevinbr38 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:22:59 AM PDT

    •  Yes, he is by some. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bsmechanic, smartalek, Brown Thrasher

      Others are able to voice an opinion on what they see as mistakes the President has made, without necessarily damning him for them.

      His reality is not mine, because he is the POTUS, and I am not, so any criticisms I might make have to be viewed with the caveat that I (and most of us) do not know the exact circumstances of those decisions.

      Is he better than the alternative? Unquestionably, but at the same time he has to offer enough of a difference that people will see it, feel it, taste it.

      It is quite beyond my comprehension that Americans would vote for Republicans after the example set during the last 14 years. I would never have guessed that so many people could be that ignorant, yet here we are.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:39:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, it's almost like (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      there's two different sides, and it's impossible to please both of them.  How sad to live in a world like that.

  •  Monday-morning quarterbacking. (7+ / 0-)

    Best. Gig. Ever.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 07:35:13 AM PDT

    •  Look forward, not backward. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreatLakeSailor, Brown Thrasher

      It's not fair to those that did things in the past. Heinous things. Or those who cover up, ignore, appease or condone them/

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:54:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  another opportunity for the Obama did not (7+ / 0-)

    prosecute Bush crowd to shed tears over the fact that Obama did not do what no other President in history had ever done.

    "If only Barack Obama had prosecuted his predecessor, the way Eisenhower did not prosecute Truman for dropping a nuclear bomb on Japan, or Truman did not prosecute FDR (a hero for Democrats) for his internment of Japanese Americans, or no other president had prosecuted his predecessor for wrongs in the entire history of this nation, we would have found something else to criticize Obama for as we always do!"

    "Yup, forget about those other past presidents, we hold Obama to a higher standard!!!! How horrible for Obama to not have done this!!"

    When President Obama entered office  he signed an executive order to close GITMO and outlawed torture! ON DAY ONE!

    The fact that he, on his very first day, outlawed the torture practice of George W. Bush and has been on the record saying this:

    "Anybody who has actually read about and understands the practice of waterboarding would say that that is torture. And that's not something we do -- period."
    Is never mentioned. All you hear these days are silly references to Obama using the word "folk" in his effort to again admit that we tortured folk. I guess the outrage is that Obama contributed a new word to the English lexicon in his supposed effort, as some have claimed, to not admit that the U.S. government tortured people.

    Well...really...this is all these folk have.

    •  He didn't outlaw anything. He's the President. (9+ / 0-)

      You might be shocked to learn this, given how often you say it when it serves your purposes, but he can't make laws.

      What he is supposed to do is enforce them.  That includes prosecuting people who offer pathetic defenses like "Oh, I didn't think torture was torture".

      What he actually did was insist that "I was just following orders" is an acceptable defense no matter how heinous the crime.

      What he actually did was announce to the world his view that if The President orders it, it's not illegal.

      The UN should give Iraq a restraining order against the US.

      by JesseCW on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:05:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you're claiming Barack Obama did not do this: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Executive Order 13491 -- Ensuring Lawful Interrogations


        By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to improve the effectiveness of human intelligence gathering, to promote the safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals in United States custody and of United States personnel who are detained in armed conflicts, to ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions, and to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:

        Section 1.  Revocation.  Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked.  All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order.  Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order.  Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.

        Sec. 2.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

        (a)  "Army Field Manual 2 22.3" means FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations, issued by the Department of the Army on September 6, 2006.

        (b)  "Army Field Manual 34-52" means FM 34-52, Intelligence Interrogation, issued by the Department of the Army on May 8, 1987.

        (c)  "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.

        (d)  "Convention Against Torture" means the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100 20 (1988).

        (e)  "Geneva Conventions" means:

         (i)    the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);

         (ii)   the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);

         (iii)  the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and

         (iv)   the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).

        (f)  "Treated humanely," "violence to life and person," "murder of all kinds," "mutilation," "cruel treatment," "torture," "outrages upon personal dignity," and "humiliating and degrading treatment" refer to, and have the same meaning as, those same terms in Common Article 3.

        (g)  The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.

        Sec. 3.  Standards and Practices for Interrogation of Individuals in the Custody or Control of the United States in Armed Conflicts.

        (a)  Common Article 3 Standards as a Minimum Baseline.  Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

        (b)  Interrogation Techniques and Interrogation-Related Treatment.  Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual).  Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes.  Where processes required by the Manual, such as a requirement of approval by specified Department of Defense officials, are inapposite to a department or an agency other than the Department of Defense, such a department or agency shall use processes that are substantially equivalent to the processes the Manual prescribes for the Department of Defense.  Nothing in this section shall preclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other Federal law enforcement agencies, from continuing to use authorized, non-coercive techniques of interrogation that are designed to elicit voluntary statements and do not involve the use of force, threats, or promises.

        (c)  Interpretations of Common Article 3 and the Army Field Manual.  From this day forward, unless the Attorney General with appropriate consultation provides further guidance, officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government may, in conducting interrogations, act in reliance upon Army Field Manual 2 22.3, but may not, in conducting interrogations, rely upon any interpretation of the law governing interrogation -- including interpretations of Federal criminal laws, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, Army Field Manual 2 22.3, and its predecessor document, Army Field Manual 34 52    issued by the Department of Justice between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.

        It hurts to be trumped by facts, doesn't it? Stop misrepresenting the President's record.

        This executive order to end the torture practices of the Bush administration was signed the very first day Barack Obama became president.

        Now carry on with you and the rest of the anti-Obama coalition's effort to cry tears for effect over something the President will not, and no other president has done, which is to prosecute his predecessor.

        I think you all should find a candidate to run on this issue and pledge to prosecute Bush during the 2016 campaign. This is your big opportunity!!!

        I know you won't, for, not only is it hard work, and hard work is one thing Obama critics do not do, it is much easier and froth with less wear and tear for them to stay on their computers and be derisive of the President, but as soon as Barack Obama leaves office this will cease being an issue.

    •  Either Everyone Has To Abide By The Laws (3+ / 0-)

      Of the US or you have a privileged class that literally gets away with murder and torture.  

      But, I guess you're okay with this being a post-Constitutional USA as long as it's acknowledged and your nose is rubbed in it.

      If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

      by stewarjt on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:54:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  find your Bush prosecuting candidate for 2016. It (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aimeehs, Tony Situ

        is a forgone conclusion by you folk that the "corrupt" Obama, as many of you have referred suggested and implied about this president, has "failed" you on this.... Who is your Bush prosecuting candidate or write-in candidate for 2016 again???

        Odd question, for I doubt any of you are looking for one, or, as I stated in the comment above yours, even care to find one.

        Yeah, sure....

        •  You're Attacking A Straw Man (4+ / 0-)

          And dragging a red herring across the trail of my point.

          I didn't accuse President Obama of anything.  I pointed out the absence of a constitutional government where everyone regardless of status has to obey laws or be indicted, tried, convicted or not and suffer punishment if found guilty.

          Your comment doesn't come close to addressing this issue.  

          Well, if President Obama didn't pursue law-breaking charges against President Bush, who's job is it?

          Do you realize you're justifying lawlessness at the government's highest levels?

          What's next?

          If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

          by stewarjt on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:40:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Nobody, not even Kucinich or Gravel, ran in 2008 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NedSparks, BenderRodriguez

        on prosecuting W.  And those who are so desrious of such prosecution, made sure to NOT make it a high-profile campaign issue in 2008, only after Obama took office did that suddenly become issue #1.  Extremely cynical.

        Well, if you want W prosecuted, then in the 2016 election, make prosecuting W a high-profile campaign issue, rather than like you did in 2008, keeping your mouths shut on the issue, then springing it on the ppublic after he took office.

        •  Absolutely, they ran around for years knowing full (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          well that no one running for President would ever dare to run on an agenda to prosecute Bush, because they would not even come a million miles of the presidency.

          So, as you rightly say, they use this issue to attack Barack Obama when he became President knowing full well that the President, already saddled with a wrecked economy and nation, would never execute such a tumultuous precedent upon the nation.

          Indeed, they will never advocate for a candidate to run on a "prosecute Bush" agenda in 2016, because they know it will never happen and, for the most part, this cynical political construction was designed for Barack Obama.

    •  Actually, it isn't only about the use of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stewarjt, Words In Action, tardis10

      "folks", and that isn't such a trivial matter as the Obama defenders like to pretend, since its purpose and intent is to trivialize our use of torture.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:23:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Meanwhile, Guantanamo remains open. (5+ / 0-)

    Gotta have offshore jails to circumvent legal consequences, right?

  •  Impeach the bastard (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, BenderRodriguez, aimeehs

    Rand Paul won't torture any folks.

    And he's down with the yoots.

  •  Yes, because this is the greatest problem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenderRodriguez, aimeehs

    the American People are facing right now, not the silly shenanigans of the Republican Congress and Senator Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell causing government gridlock and not getting anything done, because their only focus is not letting the government do its job.

    The greatest problem is not the absurd gerrymandering, Citizens United decision, and voter disenfranchisement ruining our democracy.

    We don't give a shit about this. We won't bring out the big guns for this. Oh, no...instead we must ridicule the only individual who has a bit of sanity in government. We must not, as the American People, the ones with the power to do something about it, go after the real culprits.

    No, we have to go after the nice guy...the only one who gives a damn about the average American.

    The main problem is Obama not going after the torturers in the previous administration. Yes, that's the ticket.

    < /snark >

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:10:40 AM PDT

    •  The only way for Democrats to win (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is to get into Republican faces and get out the effin vote, Goddamnit. I'm so sick of this infighting and backbiting. Fuck this shit.

      The PEOPLE must go after the GOP slime! THOSE fuckers need to be ridiculed!

      -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

      by sunbro on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:15:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Our greatest problem is voting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Everyone needs to learn from grade school on that every single vote counts and failure to make the effort causes incredible downstream grief not only to America but to the world.  

      Make no mistake, every single problem can be traced all the way back to apathy in democracy.   IMO...of course.

      What's the difference between the Federal government and organized crime? One's legally sanctioned.

      by FrankenPC on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 09:29:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama can't go after Bush anyway, he has (0+ / 0-)

    executive immunity for decisions he made as "Commander In Chief".  He would have had to commit treason to be touchable for things he did in office as President. The only thing you can do to a President is to impeach while they are in office.

    Cheney, on the other hand, was not President, and so executive immunity does not apply to him (or anyone else under him).

    And I don't think there is any statute of limitations on torture.

    What do our KOS members in the law profession say on this? (I have no legal training - just an engineer and citing from what I learned in public school.)

    •  Then why did Ford pardon Nixon? n/t (3+ / 0-)
      •  Not sure. Nixon committed crimes during his (0+ / 0-)

        campaign, although it (orchestrated break-in of DNC Headquarters and had his opponents' offices bugged) was during his second term campaign. So he was already president, although the crimes with which he might have been charged were not covered under his presidential duties.

        I don't know if anything could have been done to Nixon other than impeachment. Need some of the legal experts on KOS to weigh in. I never studied law.

        Perhaps the pardon was to halt the investigations into Nixon's involvement. His underlings did go to jail.  

        (BTW, McGovern was the first candidate I voted for. My 18th birthday was too late to vote in the primaries that year. But I was able to vote that November. Have voted in every election since (including local stuff.)

  •  It isn't true that Kiriakou was the only one to (0+ / 0-)
  •  Reminds me of something... (3+ / 0-)

    Otter: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female guests. We did. But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few sick, twisted individuals...

    Society is merely organized injustice. Clarence Darrow

    by Van Buren on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 10:42:38 AM PDT

    •  Or the entire Amred Services (0+ / 0-)

      Or every football team


      I mean, it's not as if it's an institutional problem.

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:57:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seriously? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aimeehs, smartalek, meinoregon

    It amazing how easily distracted many have become.  I know why the GOP and the Media do it.....GOPers want power in their hands and the complicit or like folks fearing to be accused of being racists, anti-Semitic, Homophobic, etc......The Media fears being called Liberal by the GOPers.....The GOPers know this and Hence, People like McCain, Boehner, Rand Paul,  etc would Never have to fear being held accountable by the Media.

    Hence the double, triple and even quadruple standard as applied nowadays by the Media against Dems, Progressives, Liberals, Minorities, Women, etc.

    •  The media runs teabag reactionary because (0+ / 0-)

      they are a monopolistic corporate run industry.
      The owners are teabaggers, and their staff must tow the line or get fired.

      There is no real effort at honest or investigative reporting anymore. And the lip service to "fair and balanced" means they have some worthless, inept and weak token liberals (actually moderates) on their talk shows, while putting every RWN guest speaker they can find on the air, no matter how provably wrong they are.  

      There are only a handful of significant media corporations which then own all the national and the majority of local media outlets (TV broadcast, cable networks, radio, newspaper and magazine news). And even PBS is now so beholden to their corporate grants (from Koch brothers and other teabaggers) that they spew the RWN messages and self-censor any programs that may offend their corporate donors. (And that was why Bush Jr. had taxpayer funding for PBS TV and radio revoked - to make them dependent on Corporate donor funds which he knew would corrupt PBS.)

      Only the internet allows for open media not controlled by the handful of corporate media. And that is why the teabaggers are trying to kill the free and open internet.

      "Real" news is neither liberal nor conservative, and not "fair and balanced", but rather truth seeking indepth investigative reporting of all that really matters. Rooting out the truth is the media's mission, and they have failed miserably under the weight of big money.

  •  Torture WAS illegal until... (0+ / 0-)

    the Bush Team found a way to pretend like it wasn't.

  •  "Oh, well, what can you do?" was the final questio (0+ / 0-)

    n asked by Pres Obama in the cartoon. Answer: Someone, and it will probably have to be at the level of US President, or at the very least the Secretary General of the UN, will have to muster the balls needed, throw caution to the wind (translation = sacrifice a political career if necessary) and PROSECUTE KNOWN WAR CRIMINALS WHO ARE RUNNING FREE ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY!! It is damn sad when our very own president shows up as so weak that he is unwilling to perform his moral duty.

  •  Ronnie Rayguns (0+ / 0-)

    was the last president to sign on to The Geneva Conventions against torture, no? Let me just say I am happy I served in the army during Vietnam because if anyone was stupid enough to be captured by the enemy, McCain, I am talking to YOU, they had a chance of being tortured. But now? EVERY enemy is looking for GIs to water board.

    Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.---George Orwell

    by okpkpkp on Tue Aug 12, 2014 at 10:32:02 PM PDT

  •  But why??? (0+ / 0-)

    Why is President Obama featured in this cartoon? I suppose the illegal actions of the Bush/Cheney regime are old news, but aren't THEY the people responsible for the torture of Iraqi and other prisoners-of-war? Yes, it's up to Obama to ensure that this type of practice doesn't ever again occur, but let's place the blame for torture where it really lies -- on the Bush administration. The main reason the people who ordered and/or condoned this type of heinous behavior will never be prosecuted is that they'll claim Executive Privilege if they're ever formally charged for the torture of prisoners-of-war. If you ask me, the entire Bush/Cheney regime should be behind bars for the rest of their miserable lives for their illegal actions since 9/11, but it ain't gonna happen, folks. Sad, but true...

    •  Yes, indeed. (0+ / 0-)
      Yes, it's up to Obama to ensure that this type of practice doesn't ever again occur
      No buts about it.  And Obama's failure to hold the previous administration accountable simply ensures that someone will do it again.  That is a fact.  Aamof, Obama banned only SOME of the policies.  So no, he doesn't smell all that sweet either, when you come right down to it.

      I see this over and over on KOS:  If a Republican did it, it's despicable.  If a Democrat did it, excuses can be made.  And, as I've said repeatedly here, "Why do we hold Republicans to higher standards than we do Democrats?"  
      And no, that's not a rhetorical question.

      The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - - Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must be the change we wish to see in the world - - Mohandas Gandhi

      by twocrows1023 on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 08:04:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When he first took office, (0+ / 0-)

    Obama trotted out the old, tired excuses, "Mistakes were made."  "Just following orders."

    Hello?  People who said those exact words were hanged at Nuremberg.  Were we more moral in the 1940's?  Or just more sanctimonious because that was them and this is us?

    The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - - Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must be the change we wish to see in the world - - Mohandas Gandhi

    by twocrows1023 on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 08:08:54 AM PDT

  •  When he first took office, (0+ / 0-)

    Obama trotted out the old, lame excuses:  "Mistakes were made."  "Just following orders."

    Hello?  People who used those same words were hanged at Nuremberg. Were we more moral in the 1940's?  Or were we just more sanctimonious because that was them and this is us?

    The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men - - Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We must be the change we wish to see in the world - - Mohandas Gandhi

    by twocrows1023 on Thu Aug 14, 2014 at 08:13:40 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site