Thom Hartmann talks to Elizabeth de la Vegas - She says WAIT! on Bush War Crimes

[thomhartmann]

Run time: 09:28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbAep4UmS1Q   Posted on YouTube: April 23, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 23, 2009 By DU Member: thomhartmann Views on DU: 991

 
Visit Thom Hartmann at http://www.thomhartmann.com to listen live, join the community or purchase a podcast.

[pinto]

1. I read her piece earlier today. She has a good argument for getting the case right, not quick.

I understand though there's a statute of limitations on a criminal prosecution, so that would be in play as well. And I assume AG Holder is aware of all this. It's his call, at least publicly.

I've heard rumblings about disbarment for the legal "team" that wrote the memos. That would be a good first step from the profession.

[Oilwellian]

3. I wonder about a statute of limitation

since many were murdered while in our custody.

[LaPera]

2. Thom Hartmann is the man (he & Mike Malloy) the very best & entertainng on talk radio.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

http://www.mikemalloy.com/

[JDPriestly]

4. The problem with Elizabeth De Vegas' suggestion of a commission

is that the commission would not have the power to indict, to bring criminal charges.

We need a procedure that can ultimately end in sentencing if appropriate.

I can't see how we could have a "non-partisan" commission shift through the evidence without violating the future defendant's rights to be tried by a jury. The commissions are extra-constitutional. They are OK for reviewing evidence but they can't lead to convictions.

Also, the idea that a commission could be truly "non-partisan" is ridiculous. In courts, there are rules prohibiting a party to a case from having ex parte (private) contact with the judge. Those rules also prevent the lawyers and others from having ex parte contact with the judge. It would be impossible to apply the procedural rules necessary to protect the rights of the accused in a commission structure.

I agree with Ms. De Vegas' concerns about prosecutions, but the Constitution does not provide any alternative to them.

The situation here is not analagous to the situations to which the 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission responded. Those commissions dealt with facts but were not faced with the likelihood that the facts might be used in prosecutions after the Commissions issued their reports. Here, the facts need to be examined, indictments need to be brought and trials held. The defendants' rights must be protected, and the commission procedure cannot allow for that.

[Left Coast2020]

5. I have an autographed copy of her book U.S. v Bush

Naner Naner Naner. :)

[FlaGranny]

6. I totally agree with De Vegas because

the more information gets out to the public, the more difficult it will be for Republicans to be partisan about it. Their arguments will sound more and more insane to the average American. After enough "memos" become public, the call for prosecution will become too loud to ignore. This reminds me of what the President said during the campaign - paraphrased - "you're going to have to 'make' me do things."

[avaistheone1]

7. You raised some very good points.