Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 1451
Location: UEMS
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: The Conyers Recommendations - Congress fights back? |
 |
|
I've often wondered when this congressman would finally show his teeth - here it is - The House Judiciary Committee Report, condensed by SOTT:-
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/182099-The-Conyers-Recommendations-A -Summation-of-the-House-Report
Extracts:-
| Quote: | | The Bush Administration's approach to power is, at its core, little more than a restatement of Mr. Nixon's famous rationalization of presidential misdeeds: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Under this view, laws that forbid torturing or degrading prisoners cannot constrain the president because, if the president ordered such acts as Commander in Chief, "that means it's not illegal." Under this view, it is not the courts that decide the reach of the law - it is the president - and neither the judiciary nor Congress can constrain him. And where statutory law or the Constitution itself appear to impose obstacles to presidential whim, creative counselors can be relied upon to reach whatever result the president desires. |
and
| Quote: | Some ardent advocates of impeachment have labeled me a traitor - or worse - for declining to begin a formal impeachment inquiry in the House Judiciary Committee. While I reject that particular criticism, I want to make clear how much I respect those who have given so much time and energy to the cause of fighting for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice- President Cheney. While we may not agree on the best path forward, I know they are acting on the basis of our shared love of this country. These citizens are not fringe radicals, and they are obviously not motivated simply by personal feelings about President Bush, however strong those feelings may be at times. They are individuals who care deeply about our Constitution and our Nation, and who have stood up to fight for the democracy they love, often at great personal cost. Our country was founded, and our democracy has long been nurtured, by people willing to take such risks, and we should honor their vigilance and courage.
However, as I have said, while President Bush and Vice President Cheney have earned the dishonorable eligibility to be impeached, I do not believe that would have been the appropriate step at this time in our history, and I would like again to briefly explain why that is the case. ... ... |
Worth a read. Despite knowing the whole turgid story it's heartening to see some backbone left in Congress.
_________________
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett |
|
Thermate911
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 16 Jul 2007
Posts: 1451
Location: UEMS
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not maybe as immediate as 'Waterboarding bad, very bad' from Obama but the Conyers report does imply there is a vestige of rule by law left in Congress.
"What if Instead of the Nuremberg Trials There Was Only a Truth Commission?"
http://www.rinf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9338
| Quote: | Published on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
What if Instead of the Nuremberg Trials There Was Only a Truth Commission?
by Jeremy Scahill
Representatives John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler are officially asking [1] Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor "to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute" participants in the Bush-era US torture system. "A Special Counsel is the most appropriate way to handle this matter," Nadler said. "It would remove from the process any question that the investigation was subject to political pressure, and it would preempt any perceptions of conflict of interest within the Justice Department, which produced the torture memos." But, as Politico reports [2], "Holder is likely to reject that request - his boss, the president, has indicated he doesn't see the need for such a prosecutor." The Democratic Leadership, particularly Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Diane Feinstein have pushed [3] for secret, closed-door hearings in the Senate Intelligence Committee. Other Democrats, like Patrick Leahy, advocate establishing a Truth Commission, though that is not gaining any momentum. The fact remains that some powerful Democrats knew [3] that the torture was happening and didn't make a public peep in opposition.
This week, Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell came out in favor of prosecutions of "the decision-makers and their closest advisors (particularly the ones among the latter who may, on their own, have twisted the dagger a little deeper in Caesar's prostrate body - Rumsfeld and Feith for instance). Appoint a special prosecutor such as Fitzgerald, armed to the teeth, and give him or her carte blanche. Play the treatment of any intermediaries - that is, between the grunts on the ground and the Oval - as the law allows and the results demand."
Wilkerson, though, understands Washington. "Is there the political will to carry either of these recommendations to meaningful consequences?" he wrote [4] to the Huffington Post. "No, and there won't be."
As of now, Conyers and Nadler aren't exactly looking for over-flow space for their meetings on how to get criminal prosecutions going.
Officially joining the anti-accountability camp this week was The Washington Post's David Broder who wrote this gem [5] in defense of the Bush administration: "The memos on torture represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places - the White House, the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department - by the proper officials." (For a great response to this, check out Scott Horton [6]). Broder is urging Obama to "stick to his guns" in standing up to pressure "to change his mind about closing the books on the ‘torture' policies of the past." Don't you love how Broder puts torture in quotes? I really wonder how Broder would describe it if he was waterboarded (and survived). Can't you just imagine him making the little quote motion with his hands? Broder's Washington Post column was titled "Stop Scapegoating: Obama Should Stand Against Prosecutions:"
[Obama was] right to declare that there should be no prosecution of those who carried out what had been the policy of the United States government. And he was right when he sent out his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to declare that the same amnesty should apply to the lawyers and bureaucrats who devised and justified the Bush administration practices.But now Obama is being lobbied by politicians and voters who want something more - the humiliation and/or punishment of those responsible for the policies of the past. They are looking for individual scalps - or, at least, careers and reputations.
Their argument is that without identifying and punishing the perpetrators, there can be no accountability - and therefore no deterrent lesson for future administrations. It is a plausible-sounding rationale, but it cloaks an unworthy desire for vengeance.
Obama has opposed even the blandest form of investigation, a so-called truth commission, and has shown himself willing to confront this kind of populist anger.
Thank goodness we have a president who opposes "even the blandest form of investigation"-how uncouth such savagery would prove to be. While the elite Washington press corp works hard to make sure things don't get too uncomfortable at the wine and cheese cocktail parties, some liberal journalists are also making the case against a special prosecutor (or at least the immediate appointment of one). Last week it was Elizabeth de la Vega [7], who made an interesting case for waiting to prosecute while evidence is gathered:
We must have a prosecution eventually, but we are not legally required to publicly initiate it now and we should not, as justifiable as it is. I'm not concerned about political fallout. What's good or bad for either party has no legitimate place in this calculus. My sole consideration is litigation strategy: I want us to succeed. ... ... ... |
Not my favourite site or author but the point is clear and judging by the names quoted, fairly mainstream thinking amongst those pseudo-liberals.
_________________
"We will lead every revolution against us!" - attrib: Theodor Herzl
"Timely Demise to All Oppressors - at their Convenience!" - 'Interesting Times', Terry Pratchett |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
