In The United States of America, some people are above the law.

[LynnTheDem]

If you waterboarded someone, you'd go to jail, because waterboarding is a torture crime under US law.

Unless you're the former president, vice president, AG, sec def, etc.

Then it's ok.


That's one reality.

The other reality is what that makes the United States of America.

[Bluzmann57]

1. And if you smoke pot, you are a criminal

And as you said, torturers walk freely among us. What's wrong with this scenario?

[msongs]

2. former presidents etc only above the law if the current president wishes it to be so nt

[MADem]

5. The current President is a President--the executive head of the nation.

He's not a judge, jury or executioner. And it's a good thing, too, that not too much power is vested in a single branch of government.

He doesn't issue "Off with his head" decrees.

[bvar22]

7. The Executive Branch is responsible for Law Enforcement....

...at least it was when I took High School Civics.

The Department of Justice is organized under the Executive Branch (White House), and is responsible for Law Enforcement. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice, and is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President.

[MADem]

16. The DOJ has an attorney general running it, who acts INDEPENDENTLY from the executive.

We have trouble when the judiciary takes ORDERS from the President. Ask 'Berto Gonzales. Ask the Ghost of Dick Nixon, too.

Did you sleep through that bit in the Civic class? You don't think there were times when Bill Clinton would have loved to tell Janet Reno what to do?

[Senator]

10. Who issues "Pre-Judged Pardon/Immunity" decrees to CIA torturers.

That's not being judge and/or jury? Not too much power? A good thing, too?

Any or all of the above?

--

[MADem]

17. So long as they acted within the four corners of the guidance they were given.

If they went beyond that guidance from the government, they are not protected.

He wasn't being judge or jury in that instance. He was telling them that they shouldn't be punished if an authorized governmental agency gave them detailed guidance on what they could and could not do that turned out to be improper or incorrect.

[Senator]

19. Yes, the "four corners" of just following orders.

It is a long-ago failed excuse/defense. And how are they "protected" -- by what authority?

The statement itself drew an http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/19/obama-violated-int-law/">accusation of criminality on the part of Obama.

He cannot protect them from universal jurisdiction. And he needs to start worrying about protecting himself.

--

[MADem]

20. People griped at Bush for being "the decider." You can't have

people deciding which laws are valid and which aren't--you'd have anarchy otherwise.

Further, you want to get the little fish, and let the big fish go free. That might make you feel good, for self-righteous reasons, perhaps, to hang people high who were operating in good faith, but it doesn't help get the people who devised the entire program, now, does it?

Enough with the "universal jurisdiction" bullshit. All that does is limit travel for people who aren't traveling under state department negotiated protections (which generally include former heads of state).

They went after Pinochet with that crap, too. So many headlines, so much drama. Where did Pinochet die? In prison, sobbing into a lumpy mattress? Why no--he died in his own comfy featherbed. If they couldn't get him, they're not going to be frogmarching any Americans any time soon--like it, or not.

"Universal jurisdiction" may be a phrase that is tossed around like it matters, but a nation's sovereignty is the trump card. The US is not going to bow to any Spanish (or any other foreign) judge, so just give that silly shit up--and don't shoot the messenger for speaking the awful truth, either.

[Senator]

21. Nobody "griped at bush" over torture.

They rightfully accused him of being a war criminal as "the decider" who decided to violate our long-standing treaty obligations, and both domestic and international laws. The rest of the world http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/1/726899/-Research-2000-Poll:-Americans-Want-Investigations">and a majority of Americans continue to do so. It is way beyond griping.

And I have not suggested that any "fish go free." Quite the opposite.

As for your peculiar distaste for the universal jurisdiction principle that our greater generations of Americans fought and died to forge, the "awful truth" is that as a treaty obligation it remains "the supreme law of the land" as per Article VI of the US Constitution.

Far from being a travel inconvenience, it forced Pinochet to deservedly spend his final years as a fugitive from the law and an int'l pariah. It secured his place in historical infamy. It may well do the same for bush, cheney, and other torture architects should we continue on our path of irresponsibility and dereliction.

And FWIW, AG Holder has already http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/29/spain-court-guantanamo-detainees-torture">left the door open to cooperating with the Spanish prosecution.

---

[MADem]

22. Where are you gettting this crap?

First, you carp about my use of the word gripe. Oh well, not strong enough for you. That's nitpicking on your part. Have at it.

Then, you make shit up about what Americans fought for--we fought, back in our early days--maybe you have forgotten this lesson--to be free from a King named George, and I'm not talking about Bush. We didn't want the boot of a Royal--or anyone ELSE--on our necks. We don't bow down to foreign masters. If we've got something to take care of, we'll take care of it. And even more so when those personnel are military, or working for the US government.

You don't think Bush has already, long before this, earned his reputation as a pariah? And are you suggesting that Pinochet, before this judge tried and failed to get him, was considered a paragon of virtue?

The day an American is forcibly extradited to appear before a Spanish judge to be accused or tried on matters that involve the Bush administration is a day when pigs will fly. The only way such an appearance in a Spanish court would happen is if someone under investigation decided, stupidly, to holiday in Madrid and was arrested there.

Holder's thinking about maybe cooperating with a request for information is NOT the same as frogmarching suspects to Spain. It won't happen. Do not hold your breath, you'll turn blue.

Don't shoot the messenger, now, but that's the truth.

[Senator]

24. I've shown you where.

You may not like the law as it is, but it's still the law. And you may not wish to keep the promises our predecessors made for our nation, but the alternative is to validate king bushcheney.

We do have "something to take care of," but we are not doing it. When this is the case, we have already agreed as a nation that the duty (not option) to "take care of it" transfers to the other signatory nations of the treaties we've signed and ratified.

But it's not just Madrid that would be off limits. Indicted war criminals are subject to arrest/abduction - then ironically, lawful rendition to authorities -- literally anywhere in the world.

You may think such a thing is impossible. But that used to be thought about stolen elections, wholesale interception of our private communications, and http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/37274prs20081021.html">troops deployed within US borders.

--

[MADem]

25. It's not "the law." It's an attitude. You show me where Americans are required to

submit themselves to a Spanish judge, outside of being inside the confines of the country of Spain. It ain't happening. You show me where allies of the USA are going to snatch up an American citizen and "render" them to Spain. That ain't happening, either.

Your argment now, I see, is that because we're not "taking care of business" fast enough to suit YOU, that the Spanish judge has the "right" to do it at a faster pace?

Your arguments are really sucking here. They're pipe dreamy, wishful thinking.

I repeat--Pinochet died in his own fluffy bed.

Don't shoot the messenger, now. You're just not making your case, and all I am doing is pointing it out. You're the one who apparently doesn't like the law as it is, not me.

[Senator]

28. Sorry, but it is the law.

And you can research universal jurisdiction on the web as easily as I did to find out that America has agreed to be subject to it.

The Spanish duty to prosecute comes from our failure to do so. They have said they will cease as soon as we begin meeting our obligations.

I repeat -- lot's of people are sure certain things "ain't happening" -- until they do.

--

[MADem]

30. We are not "subject" to the decrees of a Spanish judge. That is NOT the law.

You're making shit up.

[Senator]

34. Sorry, but it is the law.

And you can research universal jurisdiction on the web to confirm. You said yourself that what it "does is limit travel for people."

Well, that's the reason.

--

[MADem]

35. No, it is NOT "the law." It is a concept, an idea, and the US does not subscribe to it.

You might want to get your ass up on that Google and do some actual reading at sites other than advocacy ones.

You're wrong.

[freemarketer6]

37. I sincerely hope you are right. I am going to research it later

today. Bush bought that property in Paraguay for some reason. I think it's to escape prosecution for torture. I don't think it will be done here because--rightly or wrongly--I believe Obama and Bush made a deal. But that won't stop Spain, France or even England from prosecuting in the ICJ, of which the US only accepts rulings on a case-by-case basis. I think the CIA will take care of Cheney, but the rest have to be tried and found guilty. Then let them wander abroad for a fishing trip or to hunt endangered animals or something.

[ShortnFiery]

32. That was a mistake. Obama best get his head on straight or he will go down with TORTURE

too as trying to cover it up. :thumbsdown:

[Baby Snooks]

6. Or Madame Speaker wishes it to be so...

Congress could have impeached Cheney and then Bush. Of course Madame Speaker would have become Madame President. And that would have upset Miss Hillary. Such fools some are not to see the machinations of it all.

Of course in the end it wouldn't have mattered. Madame Speaker would have merely served the same masters as Madame President. Just as Miss Hillary would have. Just as Barack Obama is. We still have a shadow president and a shadow government. And have had since 1980.

You can look at the Obama administration and see that for the most part it is a Clinton administration. And it serves the shadow president.

?

To prosecute one, you have to prosecute all. And that, of course, is not going to happen.

[bvar22]

9. I fear you are correct.

I was "hoping" that an Obama Administration would offer some real changes, but the only changes so far are in the candy selection beside the cash register.

[KansDem]

3. What makes it even more disgustingly intolerable is that children were sodomized and women raped...

I believe Sy Hersh when he described the tapes he viewed. I believe we exchanged Saddam's "rape rooms" with George's.

Just because FOX News didn't report on it doesn't mean it didn't happen...

[MADem]

4. People with money may not be above the law, but a good lawyer or ten can give you some serious

elevation.

[Supersedeas]

8. the rich and powerful have a different set of rules in a Judicial System.

[slay]

12. Yes they do

and it's called feed the rich and screw the poor. Look at Rush Limburger - if he had been a 20 year old black man with that amount of opiates on him, he'd prolly be in jail for 20 years. Instead he gets no punishment, and is paid millions of dollars every year to spread his message of hate over public airwaves. The true criminals have always been the rich. They distract us with the dirty looking crack dealer on the street while peeps like Bernie Madoff are free to rob billions. Hrmm.. maybe if we could get crack dealers to wear suits... It really is sickening how the rich are free to basically do what they want in this country while the rest of us live in fear of making enough money to pay our bills and buy food. We should tax the rich at a rate of 75% and make it so it is no longer profitable for companies to move overseas. I've had enough of this shit of getting screwed by the rich while they play politics and manipulate people too dumb to know better into voteing Republican to help cover for them!!! :grr: :mad:

[Rebubula]

11. Folks...

...let us be realistic here...Our Man Obama has only been in office for 100 days. He is trying to fix 8 years of corruption without breaking the country and creating havoc.

He will do right by the majority of people...and he will do right by us.

Give him some time...he will make wine from waterboarding

[jenmito]

13. How do you know Holder won't end up prosecuting Bush, Cheney, etc.? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

14. I think you are passing judgment prematurely.

While I too cannot predict the future, I do know this is a work in progress.

I am hopeful until I have reason to not be.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Corruption at the highest levels creates the inequality ...

before, or after, the law.

[depakid]

18. If you defrauded someone- or violated securities laws- or made false statements to a govt official

or any number of federal crimes that many 1,000's of banksters did (and are probably still doing) -you'd be doing time in cluf fed.

Not a priority or a problem for the Obama administration, though- and it'll end up costing them support down the line.

[Vidar]

23. The law does not apply to the rich & powerful.

[Orsino]

26. The law is for little people, as with taxes. n/t

[lonestarnot]

27. Damn! Never too late to recommend!

[Romulox]

29. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. Unless you're well connected.

Then you go to Obama's cabinet. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

31. They always have been, but at least our "leaders" TRIED to hide that fact. Now it's to be ...

bragged about. Hardly any of us have mega-bucks invested on the stock market, but instead of A Labor Channel, we get obnoxious coots on CNBC telling us "unwashed masses" that we serve them. In fact, THE rich have squandered all their money, time to fleece "the people" AGAIN. :grr:

[ShortnFiery]

33. If we don't investigate and prosecute we will have a permanent SHADOW GOVERNMENT

running the show.

Remember these ghouls have resurfaced HERE after Iran-Contra?

For at its heart Iran-Contra was a battle over presidential power dating back directly to the Richard Nixon era of Watergate, Vietnam and CIA dirty tricks. That clash continues under the presidency of George W. Bush, which has come under frequent fire for the controversial efforts of the president, as well as Vice President Richard Cheney, to expand Executive Branch authority over numerous areas of public life.

Iran-Contra also echoes in the re-emergence of several prominent public figures who played a part in, or were touched by, the scandal. The most recent is Robert M. Gates, President Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense (see below and the documents in this compilation for more on Gates' role).

This sampling of some of the most revealing documentation (Note 1) to come out of the affair gives a clear indication of how deeply involved the president was in terms of personally directing or approving different aspects of the affair. The list of other officials who also played significant parts, despite their later denials, includes Vice President George H.W. Bush, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, CIA Director William J. Casey, White House Chief of Staff Donald T. Regan, and numerous other senior and mid-level officials, making this a far broader scandal than the White House portrayed it at the time.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/index.htm

One Ghoul is still here!

Robert M. Gates - President Bush's nominee to succeed Donald Rumsfeld, Gates nearly saw his career go up in flames over charges that he knew more about Iran-Contra while it was underway than he admitted once the scandal broke. He was forced to give up his bid to head the CIA in early 1987 because of suspicions about his role but managed to attain the position when he was re-nominated in 1991.

[freemarketer6]

36. If we do not investigate and hold the parties responsible for

torture, we have no country, and Obama will not be re-elected. I still believe a deal was made between George Bush and Obama that prevented Obama from going after Bush. I sure hope Spain gets the ball rolling faster.

[TheKentuckian]

38. In the world run by humans, some people have always been above the law

I understand the sentiment, even agree with it in large measure but acting like this is new is beyond bogus.

Some folks might also allow things to take some form of a course. This has to be handled very carefully or it will set the table for even more harm to be done.

[bullwinkle428]

39. A Texas sheriff was prosecuted for water-boarding a suspect...

under GOVERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!!