The rule of law is a terrible thing to waste.
There are no headlines or pontificating pundits, but the real news that has become crystal clear to any but the most delusional and distracted Americans is that President Obama has no commitment to applying the rule of law where it counts. Certainly, not applying it to the large number of rich and powerful people that have violated our Constitution and plunged the nation into economic disaster.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - roger nowosielski
Pablo,
There hasn't yet been an evil, however defying the imagination, that there haven't been people justifying and excusing it. And that's a fact.
27 - roger nowosielski
A perfect case in the study of ignorance, or how the gung-ho team from Texas has hijacked the country.
More of the same.
28 - roger nowosielski
And more.
29 - Clavos
Blah, blah, blah...
30 - pablo
Torture is now known as blah, blah blah, isn't that special.....:)
31 - Clavos
Not the torture itself, Pablo, just all the ineffectual blathering about it.
Talk on the internet ain't gonna stop it, Pablo. You want it stopped -- do something about it, though that might be difficult from the Philippines.
32 - roger nowosielski
Well, but it was as a result of public pressure on Obama, and the media, that now he's shifting gears as regards possible prosecution.
33 - Joanne Huspek
I suppose no one remembers Nixon was pardoned, and his crimes were much worse in my book. But then with the patina of 20 years or so, and all is overlooked and he's a great statesman. It worked for some, but it didn't work for me.
34 - roger nowosielski
But don't forget, Joanne. Nixon stepped down before the impeachment proceedings. And I truly don't know what's worse. Most engage in cover-up, and Bush's team came awfully close a number of times. Perhaps they just haven't been caught.
35 - Baronius
"Perhaps they just haven't been caught." There it is for you, Dan(M). We're not arguing about the law here, we're arguing about articles of faith.
36 - roger nowosielski
You can't presume to be that naive as to think that law can't be skirted, can you now, especially by the higher-ups?
37 - Baronius
We don't prosecute on the basis of the possibility that the law has been skirted. We shouldn't accuse on that possibility either.
38 - roger nowosielski
But that's what the trial is for, Baronius, as the term indicates. "Being charged" is one thing; "being convicted" another. So why not bring 'em all to court - on whatever charge. And then let's see if we can make it stick.
Do you think it's unfair? I'd say that suspicion of crime is sufficient to instigate legal action. If only in the interest of discovery.
39 - Baronius
Madness.
40 - roger nowosielski
I know it may remind you of "witch hunt" or a "fishing expedition." But stranger things have happened, even in the history of the good ole US of A. So why not again, with the proviso, of course, that the courts be fair and just?
41 - Dan(Miller)
Roger,
Great idea! Presumably, then you deem suspicion that President Obama may not be a natural born U.S. citizen and is, therefore, not Constitutionally qualified to be President, is sufficient to instigate legal action. If only in the interest of discovery.
Let's roll! Let the witch hunts and fishing expeditions begin!
Dan(Miller)
42 - Baronius
Dan(M), that sounds a lot like witch talk. I'm keeping an eye on you.
43 - roger nowosielski
I don't happen to think that's much of an issue; but the possibility of circumventing the law is.
So yes, we have to be guided by the gravity of the possible offense. And you're not going to deny now, are you, that these so-called abhorrent practices (such as witch-hunts) are the sole invention of my brain cells? We had them before, and we'll have 'em again.
Unless you want to believe, of course, that we've transcended our usual human condition and landed on a higher plane. I never took you for an idealist.
44 - Baronius
And once we get rid of the presumption of innocence, we can do away with all the other rights of the accused, including the freedom from torture, which would then make all the claims against the Bush administration moot.
45 - roger nowosielski
Unreasonable searches and seizures, not to mention your hobby horse, "presumption of innocence," have become daily diet of the "Patriot Act," for which, if you have not directly voted, certainly approve. So what's the big stink now when other than the hoi poloi are subjected to the same unconstitutional tactics?
Plus, I'm not talking about abrogation of rights or Miranda rights or etc. Just taking the rascals to trial, in the interest of finding the truth.
Any honorable person ought to subject themselves to a trial - if only in the interest of honor alone. So are you worrying perhaps that the usual suspects shan't be able to withstand it?
If that's the case then I grant your concern. Because they're liable to be guilty as charged.
Carry on.
46 - handyguy
Obama has been unfairly criticized by several sides in this issue. His release of the torture memos, accompanied by assurances that agents will not be prosecuted, seems imminently sensible. But Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and company practically cried treason over it.
Then yesterday the president was falsely accused of reversing this position, by saying it is up to the Justice Department whether to pursue charges against the Bush Administration's lawyers who wrote the disturbing and twisted justifications of torture. He also said it was up to Congress whether to establish a bipartisan, 9/11 style commission to establish facts.
I don't see the contradiction and I don't see the problem. This president continues to address the excesses motivated by the "War" on Terror in a moderate, reassuringly sane way. If it makes Rove, Cheney, and the furthest-left reaches of the Dems all unhappy, that's a sign of a good policy.
47 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius, I guess it all depends on which witch is which, and whether the witch is to the left or right of center*.
Dan(Miller)
*wherever center may be.
48 - roger nowosielski
Handy,
He did switch gears. It was only after an outpour of public opinion that the possibility of prosecution was brought up. Which isn't to criticize him, but facts are facts.
49 - Dan(Miller)
Just taking the rascals to trial, in the interest of finding the truth.
Any honorable person ought to subject themselves to a trial, in the interest of finding the truth.
See my comment #41.
Dan(Miller)
50 - handyguy
It's not up to the president to order the Attorney General to prosecute people or not to.
The contradiction, such as it was, was between what Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday and what the president said on Tuesday.
I imagine Obama would prefer not to have such trials occur, because they stoke partisan rancor in a potentially destructive way. But his 'clarification' yesterday was meant to emphasize that it was never his intention to sweep anything under the rug.
51 - Baronius
Maybe we should build a big camp to keep all the administration officials we're not sure committed crimes, and then we could figure out what to charge them with....
52 - roger nowosielski
But that's a political reason, Handy, and ultimately of lesser interest than administration of justice.
53 - roger nowosielski
#39,
If some people want to make it an issue, perhaps. But I wouldn't confuse matters of technicality with potentially substantive offenses.
Of course, my remarks presume a universe in which honor rules. That's hardly the case today, so the argument is somewhat theoretical.
54 - Baronius
Roger, the whole point is that we live in a country where law rules, or we don't. You can't give up on the technicalities of the law in pursuit of the law. You're proposing that we give up on the technicalities of the law in pursuit of those people we think might have given up on the technicalities of the law in pursuit of those we think broke the law. There's no justice in that; there's no logic in that.
55 - Joel Hirschhorn
How did this website get hijacked by far right fanatics? Just curious.
Let everyone understand that ordering the torture of prisoners DID violate US and international law; period, end of story. Water boarding was a crime that the US prosecuted after WWII. From Bush on down there were high level officials who broke the law. There were also countless actions by Bush that violated the Constitution.
As to the economic crisis, understand that there were a host of high level officials in the Fed Reserve and a number of regulatory agencies that did not do their jobs and, for the most part, rewarded their pals in the private sector by overlooking gross misdeeds.
56 - handyguy
Joel, if what you are claiming were true, Obama would not have released the memos.
57 - Baronius
By my count, Joel, there have been 20 comments out of 55 that were from the right.
58 - handyguy
Baronius and Dan M:
Who is talking about conducting a vague witch hunt, except you?
If and when the Justice Department does this, then complain -- loudly. I'll join you.
Roger's argument is fuzzy and hypothetical. Cindy is not making a legal argument, but a moral one. But Obama and Holder, thus far, are outside the reach of your complaints.
59 - roger nowosielski
"Roger, the whole point is that we live in a country where law rules, or we don't. You can't give up on the technicalities of the law in pursuit of the law. You're proposing that we give up on the technicalities of the law in pursuit of those people we think might have given up on the technicalities of the law in pursuit of those we think broke the law. There's no justice in that; there's no logic in that."
Baronius, I'd buy what you say in a perfect universe. But it's not and never will be, as your own Catholic faith ought to teach you. So I don't see why you're so intent on defending all those who in all probability, as evidence unfolds day by day, are guilty.
Standing trial is no condemnation. It's an acceptable procedure going back to times immemorial. As I said, honorable men submit willingly; those who are not ... well
So are you saying now that we would descend into barbarism to see justice done? Because if that's the import of your remarks, then I must say that all the sophistication we've acquired as regards our legal system and all such count for naught - including the technicalities you're so keen on relying on - because the ultimate reason behind law, any law, is to see justice done.
But you'd rather fall on the process even if it means a (possibly) guilty party go.
Not only it is unrealistic, because the common folk don't usually have that privilege, but smacks of a double standard as well (because the privileged ones do).
I might go along with your argument if you had expressed similar sentiments with respect to the underclass, but I haven't seen it thus far. All I've seen is that you bleed for justice on behalf of the well-to do and the powerful. So excuse me if I don't take your complaint seriously and that your appeals to "justice" sound hollow to me.
60 - roger nowosielski
Handy,
You misunderstand. "Witch-hunt" was just an analogy.
I'd never suspect your fearless leader to succumb to such a repulsive idea.
Come on, give me some credit.
61 - Dan(Miller)
Handyguy, #58 -- I have responded to what I consider strange statements by the author of the article and in various comments by others reflecting what I consider unfortunate misconceptions of the rule of law in the United States. I have not, as far as I know, confused President Obama or Mr. Holder with those expressing such views, nor am I aware that either of them holds such views. If either of them does, then the situation is quite a lot worse than I think it is.
Dan(Miller)
62 - Mr. Dock Ellis
Just another Oblahblah political distraction manuever. The winners (Dems) of 2008 try the losers (reps) He needs this cause the economy continuing to tank and the tea parties struck a nerve.
And this guy wants a Nuremberg trial for Bush? Total quackery.
Should we have read the Somali pirates their rights before shooting them? Does the pirate in custody get a visit from the Red Cross a la' the Geneva Convention? Oh, please. What has been the response over the years to those who lived outside the bounds of civilization and preyed upon it. The pirates, bandits, terrorists etc . . . met one fate.
63 - Dave Nalle
Despite the loud reference to "international and domestic laws," the article offers no citation to any law, international or domestic, violated by President Bush or the others from the former administration
This is the key point here, Dan. In fact, the Bush administration did NOT violate the Geneva convention or other international laws in their treatment of prisoners, because no matter how much Joel and others don't want to accept it, the prisoners in question were terrorists by definition and not prisoners of war. No ambiguity about it.
As for torture, the argument that US domestic law does not apply to foreign prisoners is hard to dispute, and the various international declarations on torture don't carry the weight of law, except the Geneva convention, which doesn't apply to terrorists.
So what I have to ask is how Joel plans to try these devils of the Bush administration? I've got no problem with trying them, but to convict them you need a law to apply, or else you're the one playing havoc with the rule of law.
Dave
64 - pablo
Thanks for showing us your libertarian stuff Dave, it is always appreciated. :)
65 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
"I've got no problem with trying them, but to convict them you need a law to apply, or else you're the one playing havoc with the rule of law."
Isn't this what this dispute is or ought to be about? To try to convict anyone prior to the legal process would be prejudging the case. And I don't think any reasonable person would disagree.
But let the facts come out in the course of due process and let the courts decide whether the law was violated.
Roger
66 - Dave Nalle
Pablo, I'm a libertarian because I'm a rationalist. I believe in the rule of reason. That means that I look at facts, try to analyze them objectively and draw conclusions from them. Being a libertarian does not suddenly make me abandon reason or lose my grip on reality, or want to hold show trials with no legal basis for them.
And the point, Roger, is that it's hard to start a legitimate trial process if you can't find a law under which to charge the supposed criminals.
Dave
67 - roger nowosielski
Well, then your point, Dave, in the last paragraph of your #63, was a rhetorical (or a theoretical) one. Why bring it up, then?
Roger
68 - Cindy
Dan S.(Miller),
I'm still working on my case. I'll put my evidence here some time when I get time.
69 - Cindy
How 'bout this. If you don't want to prosecute Bush for war crimes, then we should at least be able to extradite him to a country that will.
70 - Dan
"And the point, Roger, is that it's hard to start a legitimate trial process if you can't find a law under which to charge the supposed criminals."---Dave
Someone should break the news to Scooter Libby.
71 - roger nowosielski
Well, I don't have a problem with the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into possible violations. Do you?
72 - Cindy
Dan S.(Miller),
I think Elizabeth Holtzman's case will work. It's a one page article. (It's better explained by a lawyer than by me anyway.)
The Case Against George W. Bush
By Elizabeth Holtzman
I'll add the evidence that exists that Bush and Cheney did have the forged document created to falsely link the 911 terrorist and Iraq, in order to wage a war.
I'll add the violoation of the:
Convention Against Torture, signed by Reagan
which states...
Article 2
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Okay so, I think those few things are a start.
73 - Dan
The most relevant point to come from Obama's questionable release of highly classified documents is that sloshing water in the faces of people who saw off heads worked very well.
The documents reveal that a 'second wave' of airline attacks was planned for the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West coast.
The information obtained prevented this from happening. That's a good thing isn't it?
74 - Dave Nalle
Dan, what this brings up is the eternal conflict between the lesser and greater evil. The reason we have people in positions of leadership is so that they can make the unpleasant decision to occasionally do something immoral in order to prevent a greater evil.
When they do this they run the risk of being held accountable in the judgment of their successors or in the judgment of history. What happens, quite often, is that they are held accountable in the immediate aftermath and then exonerated by the court of history, which tends to be more dispassionate.
Now, I'd like the protections of the US constitution to apply to all people in the world with no reservations. But under the law as it has been practiced, that has not been the case, and there has never been a US law or an international treaty which the US has agreed to which prohibits torture of foreign nationals. If I were Obama and I were serious about this issue I'd make fixing that oversight the main priority.
You will notice that when Cindy brings up the Convention on Torture she conveniently omits clause 1, which states:
"1 Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction."
Which makes it clear that the convention itself does not ban torture and does not have the weight of law. It is merely a guideline which states are supposed to follow in passing their own laws banning torture, a requirement which the US did not follow through on.
Our failure here is not the actions of the Bush administration -- which some like Joel and Cindy and Pablo would like to punish out of spite rather than legal justification in some sort of McCarthyite witch hunt. The real failure is not having clear and applicable law prohibiting agents of our government from torturing those not protected by the Constitution.
That omission is hardly accidental. It has been an unstated matter of policy for decades. If we don't like it, let's change the policy. And I'd hope we would do it by extending the FULL protection of all elements of the Constitution to all people regardless of nationality or geography.
Dave
75 - Cindy
Dave!
The reason we have people in positions of leadership is so that they can make the unpleasant decision to occasionally do something immoral in order to prevent a greater evil.
Why does it say in the constitution that the president must execute the law then?
"The Constitution plainly states the president shall 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' The president must obey and uphold the law, not take it into his own hands. Case law on this is clear." --Elizabeth Holtzman (see the link above)
The intent of the law here is to prevent torture.
It's also clear from the War Crimes Act of 1996.
(A) Torture.â€" The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
The intention of the law is again reiterated in the McCain torture ban 2005-2006, signed by Bush. And I argue, in this case, it is specifically introduced because of actions by and policies of the Bush administration that would counter the clear intention of the law.
That Bush makes a signing statement which has the simple effect of justifying what he and a few other people think and putting himself above the law, is unacceptable. Why even have a law if it is so essentially meaningless that the very person it is aimed at controlling is the one who gets to decide to break it--using reasoning the law itself says he cannot use!
The intent of the law is apparent by all the strong language used. It reiterates ideas that under no circumstances, none, zero, ever...is torture acceptable.
To do anything to try to circumvent this intention is to fail in the duty to faithfully execute the law.
If this is not true. Then we are completely lost. It means a president can justify anything he wants to.