and yet they come here any way possible why is that ?
Godfather.
many people come from abject poverty ... many come from places where they earn $10 a day but would gladly stay for $15 ... many of these places have had their local economy affected by US intervention ...
if you look up the charts ... most documented immigrants to the US come from mexico and central america ... it's not like there is a huge onslaught of people from developed first world countries ...
in any case - people need to know what US foreign policy has done around the world before they cast judgement about people and cultures they know nothing about ...
I have just started looking into this and will read more later,check it out.
You're a good debater Byrnzie, and I can tell your a smart person. But as soon as you do not agree with something you turn to anger, accusations and personal attacks......typical liberal.
Yes, because heaven knows conservatives have done nothing but take the moral high ground since Obama took office.
Unless you consider the fact that Obama gets 4x the number of death threats Bush did to be an example of disagreeing with someone peacefully and calmly lol
Less crazies...they are just calling more. Repub. crazies work and can pay phone bills so they have more access.
You clearly don't live in the South. I know a lot of liberals, and they all have jobs and pay their phone bills and not a single one of them ever threatened to kill Bush. However, I also know a lot of conservatives, and a lot of them have bounced around from job to job, spending stretches of time on welfare or in jail, and often talk about Obama while they discuss the number of guns they own
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
uhhh ... what point are you trying to get across with this right-wing organization? ... these are the guys that aim to profit from foreign policy decisions ... these are the kind of people that ultimately push america into conflicts in the name of greed ...
uhhh ... what point are you trying to get across with this right-wing organization? ... these are the guys that aim to profit from foreign policy decisions ... these are the kind of people that ultimately push america into conflicts in the name of greed ...
I would like to learn about foreign policy in the united states, as you said I clearly don't know anything about it
and as much it pains me to agree on this with you you're right so if you could point me in the right direction that would be great, thanks
I would like to learn about foreign policy in the united states, as you said I clearly don't know anything about it
and as much it pains me to agree on this with you you're right so if you could point me in the right direction that would be great, thanks
The U.S is the only country on Earth to have been formally charged with state terrorism by the International Court of Justice. What do you think about that?
What do I think?
I think you obviously have no idea how awful the threat of militant Islam is. If you did, you and the others pleading the case of "being nice to the killers" would stop.
I would like to learn about foreign policy in the united states, as you said I clearly don't know anything about it
and as much it pains me to agree on this with you you're right so if you could point me in the right direction that would be great, thanks
The U.S is the only country on Earth to have been formally charged with state terrorism by the International Court of Justice. What do you think about that?
What do I think?
I think you obviously have no idea how awful the threat of militant Islam is. If you did, you and the others pleading the case of "being nice to the killers" would stop.
I would like to learn about foreign policy in the united states, as you said I clearly don't know anything about it
and as much it pains me to agree on this with you you're right so if you could point me in the right direction that would be great, thanks
The U.S is the only country on Earth to have been formally charged with state terrorism by the International Court of Justice. What do you think about that?
What do I think?
I think you obviously have no idea how awful the threat of militant Islam is. If you did, you and the others pleading the case of "being nice to the killers" would stop.
But then again, maybe you wouldn't. Who cares.
There is absolutely nobody in here that is "being nice to the killers".
If someone is captured and proven to be a threat to the U.S., and if they decide to get information out of them, people are saying they should use ways that are effective, not ones that garner the response that they want to hear.
Do you have a stance or an opinion on the effectiveness of tactics such as waterboarding or other torture?
DO YOU THINK THEY WORK EFFECTIVELY??? Please, I'm dying to know your answer.
I would like to learn about foreign policy in the united states, as you said I clearly don't know anything about it
and as much it pains me to agree on this with you you're right so if you could point me in the right direction that would be great, thanks
have you sobered up?
you came very close to breaking my heart
with last night's gutteral derisions of democrats
and particularly females
of which i am both
just checking?
gayle
The U.S is the only country on Earth to have been formally charged with state terrorism by the International Court of Justice. What do you think about that?
What do I think?
I think you obviously have no idea how awful the threat of militant Islam is. If you did, you and the others pleading the case of "being nice to the killers" would stop.
But then again, maybe you wouldn't. Who cares.
wow militant islam is a threat to who? if we stayed out of their affairs and took our bases out of their countries like saudi arabia they would cease to be a threat to us. bin laden has said this himself on numerous occasions. they view us as crusaders waging war on islam and subjugating the muslims of the middle east, and they are right. that is what happens when you engage in empire expansion, you make yourself a target. but your exaggeration of the threat is spoken like what a fox news host would say..
nobody said "be nice to the killers". nobody ever said that. where in the thread are you reading that? we said it is wrong to hold people without charge and due process and that "torture is wrong in all cases" and that "human rights are above any law"and you read it as "be nice to the killers" and it seems that your attitude is "well if we can't torture them and get intelligence that may or may not be correct, hell lets just let them go" and that attitude and way of thinking is what i find the most disturbing.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
that was my question in the death penalty thread (RIP). thanks for posting it here too, Triumphant.
do you think because the stuff that Bush authorized was not on American soil or his "own people", that this excuses his mass murder of Iraqis and Afghans? Sure SH was an asshole, but really, you don't think that GWB was bad enough to warrant the same punishment? He authorized the killings of thousands upon thousands of CIVILIANS. Women, Men, Children. He disgusts me. They were not casualties of war. They were casualties of mass murder by the American government.
If you're going to hang Saddam, you'd better load up the firing squad for Bush and Cheney.
SADAAM HUSSEIN HIMSELF IS/WAS A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!!!!
Saddam Hussein was a terrible man. just horribe.
someone asked this in another thread and it was ignored.
do you think GWB deserves the same end to his life as Hussein for all his crimes against humanity? how about all of the innocent lives he snuffed out for the greater American good?
War is a terible thing. Innocent lives get taken. That is war. Bush was nothing like Saddam. Saddam was an evil dictator. Bush was not. Now if Bush had a State of the Union Adress and called democratic names one by one that were against his policies, had them led outside to be shot, then yes, or if Bush dumped chemicals on millions of people simply because of their beliefes, then yes again,I would say he deserves the same fate as Saddam.
I don't believe Bush has any mass graves full of charred bodies hidden at the ranch. And I don't believe Bush would ever torture young children forcing the childs parents to watch. I hold no qualms with Bush when it comes to removing Saddam Hussein from the planet earth.
Sorry, I really should have put more thought into this before posting. I keep having to edit to add more. But how has anything in Iraq served for the greater American good. In the long run it will be a better Iraq. I think long term, very long from now, when we are dead and gone, Iraq will be a better place because of Bush.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Ok with torture.(not OK when done by someone else)
OK with preemptive war
OK with killing of millions of innocents.(not OK when done by someone else)
Evidence is not needed
Cannot look through the eyes of a someone from another country
Cannot look critically at any American foreign policy.
There are many many many more things wrong in this thread and have been pointed out, with evidence and dismissed without.
Have baggers been beaten with the stupid stick? Turn off Fox new for a few months and let your system be purged. Your brains have been molded to the point where there is no more ability for critical thought.
WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday joined a growing chorus in the human rights community calling for a special prosecutor to investigate whether former president George W. Bush violated federal statutes prohibiting torture.
In his new memoir and ensuing book tour, Bush has repeatedly admitted that he directly authorized the waterboarding of three terror suspects. Use of the waterboard, which creates the sensation of drowning, has been an iconic and almost universally condemned form of torture since the time of the Spanish Inquisition.
Except for a brief period during which a handful of Bush administration lawyers insisted that the exigencies of interrogating terror suspects justified its use, waterboarding has always been considered illegal by the Justice Department. It is also a clear violation of international torture conventions.
The ACLU is urging Attorney General Eric Holder to ask Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate Bush. For nearly three years now, Durham has been acting as a special prosecutor investigating a variety of torture-related matters involving government officials considerably lower on the food chain. Just this Tuesday, it was widely reported that Durham had cleared the CIA's former top clandestine officer and others in the destruction of agency videotapes showing waterboarding of terror suspects -- but that he would continue pursuing other aspects of his investigation.
"The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President's acknowledgment that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history," the group wrote in its letter to Holder.
"The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for Mr. Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture."
In his new memoir, "Decision Points," Bush recalls his thought process after CIA director George Tenet asked for permission to waterboard alleged al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in early 2003. Bush's response: "Damn right."
In an interview with the Times of London published this week, Bush used that language again, this time with feeling. James Harding described asking Bush if he authorized the use of the waterboard on Mohammed.
"Damn right!" he barks. "We capture the guy, the chief operating officer of al-Qaeda, who kills 3,000 people. We felt he had the information about another attack. He says: 'I'll talk to you when I get my lawyer.' I say: 'What options are available and legal?' "
In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, Bush explained himself this way:
We believe America's going to be attacked again. There's all kinds of intelligence comin' in. And-- and-- one of the high value al Qaeda operatives was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the chief operating officer of al Qaeda... ordered the attack on 9/11. And they say, "He's got information." I said, "Find out what he knows." And so I said to our team, "Are the techniques legal?" He says, "Yes, they are." And I said, "Use 'em."
LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?
BUSH: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer, but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do.
The so-called "Torture Memos" were drafted by officials in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under the strict supervision of the vice president's office -- and were withdrawn within a matter of months when other Bush lawyers found them utterly unjustifiable.
For the record, the first time Bush admitted his direct role in waterboarding was actually back in early June, when he casually acknowledged what he'd done and said he'd do it again.
"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Mich., in a paid appearance. "I'd do it again to save lives."
I wrote at the time about the outraged response from some former military and intelligence officials.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat who (for now) chairs the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, called for a criminal investigation into Bush's conduct on Tuesday.
He told MSBNC host Ed Schultz on Wednesday:
[T]he United States has always considered waterboarding torture except during the Bush administration. We prosecuted Japanese generals for waterboarding people. We prosecuted American soldiers for waterboarding people and pressed that cage. The current attorney general Mr. Holder has said that waterboarding is torture. We`ve always regarded it as torture and under our statute, under our international law, we are bound to prosecute. The president has a duty under the constitution to take care the laws of faith to be executed and now that former President Bush said that he personally ordered waterboarding, there must be at least an investigation and a special prosecutor.
Nadler called Bush's admission a "smoking gun." But, he said, he was dubious that Holder would act.
"Judging by the record of this attorney general, he will not pay attention, he will not respond," Nadler said. The reason: "[T]his administration, unfortunately, has taken the opinion -- has taken the attitude that they`re not going to look at any criminal actions within the prior administration. They say, let`s look forward, not backward, by that standard no one would ever prosecute any crime and this is a violation of our obligations under the torture treaty, under the torture convention, that Ronald Reagan signed."
Also on Tuesday, a Republican suggested for the first time that a torture investigation in Congress might not be out of the question. As Think Progress reported, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that he's "not afraid of going after the Bush administration."
Amnesty International called for a criminal investigation on Wednesday.
"Under international law, anyone involved in torture must be brought to justice, and that does not exclude former President George W. Bush. If his admission is substantiated, the USA has the obligation to prosecute him," said senior director Claudio Cordone. "In the absence of a US investigation, other states must step in and carry out such an investigation themselves."
Indeed, British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson was quoted in the British press this week as saying Bush's admission could leave him open to arrest and possible prosecution if he visits countries that have ratified the UN torture convention.
That includes a good chunk of the globe.
"George W Bush has confessed to ordering waterboarding, which in the view of almost all experts clearly passes the severe pain threshold in the definition of torture in international law," Robertson said. "[H]e is an ex-head of state so he is not entitled to immunity from arrest and trial."
Robertson added: "So his retirement travel plans may well be circumscribed, although he never ventured abroad before he became President, and no doubt made the statements in his book having been advised of this potential consequence."
Here's the full text of the ACLU letter:
Dear Attorney General Holder:
The American Civil Liberties Union respectfully urges you to refer to Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham the question of whether former president George W. Bush's conduct related to the interrogation of detainees by the United States violated the anti-torture statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340A.
In his recently published memoirs, President Bush discusses his authorization of the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. He states, for example, that he "approved the use of the [enhanced] interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, on Abu Zubaydah, and that he responded to a request to waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed by stating: "Damn right." George W. Bush, Decision Points 169-70 (2010).
The Department of Justice has made clear that waterboarding is torture and, as such, a crime under the federal anti-torture statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2340A(c). The United States has historically prosecuted waterboarding as a crime. In light of the admission by the former President, and the legally correct determination by the Department of Justice that waterboarding is a crime, you should ensure that Mr. Durham's current investigation into detainee interrogations encompasses the conduct and decisions of former President Bush.
The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President's acknowledgement that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history. The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for Mr. Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture.
Failure to fully investigate the role of the former President in the use of torture would also severely compromise our ability to advocate for human rights in other countries. The United States has been a champion of that cause for over half a century. Recently, while in Indonesia, President Obama urged that country to acknowledge the human rights abuses of the Suharto regime. He stated unequivocally that "[w]e can't go forward without looking backwards." Without suggesting that our own experience is equivalent, it is clear that the United States's authority to push for such accountability in other countries, and the willingness of those countries to follow our advice, would quickly unravel if we failed even to investigate abuses authorized by our own officials.
The ACLU understands the gravity of this matter and appreciates the difficulty of the Department of Justice's task. A nation committed to the rule of law, however, cannot simply ignore evidence that its most senior leaders authorized torture.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. For your convenience, I am attaching the ACLU's letter of March 17, 2009, in which we asked you to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate crimes relating to the abuse of detainees.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Bush should get tried for so much more, but here we are with the baggers about launch endless investigations into..........Obama?
they have clearly lost their minds.
this is why i have lost hope in this country. the rich and powerful walk the earth with no fear of retribution or prosecution, while a man with an ounce and a half of weed goes to jail....as far as i can tell we are fucked. the wrong things are always the priority. it is like living in bizarro world.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
as I said no more than you or anybody else on this board but personally yes I think Saddam had his hand in there some how and I think he helped to fund the attack but thats just my opinion.
Godfather.
ok ... so based on this ... i think the people of kentucky were responsible for 9/11 ... i've got no evidence whatsoever but i got that feeling ... so, let's just bomb the shit out of kentucky ... :(
hayyy now your catching on....to what I don't know, your post was an attack on me with no provocation
this tells me more about you than I need to know,have a nice day.
Godfather.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I think you obviously have no idea how awful the threat of militant Islam is.
Is that why you funded death squads in Nicaragua?
Is that also why you invaded Panama?
Is it the reason why you continue an illegal blockade of Cuba?
Nobody knows about this shit. We only know what we are spoon fed.
EVERYBODY should know about this shit. ignorance is no excuse. you know your media is bullshit. you know theres more to the story than they tell you. educate yourself.. no one is gonna do it for you.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Paul this was one of those passed around e-mails but I thought you all would get a kick out of it.
BEST IDEA HEARD IN A LONG, LONG TIME!!!
Members of Congress should be Compelled to wear uniforms just like NASCAR drivers…
So we could identify their corporate sponsors.
Paul,
Since you brought up the "dead" thread, don't really find it fair that you haven't been banned for provocation....just saying
What's provocative about the mere mention of another thread? Looks to me like you're the one stirring shit up here, not Paul David....just saying.
I looked through that thread and I really still don;t see why anyone would be banned over that. All controversial discussions will tend to get heated and even a bit personal from time to time, if you let it go, it comes back to a good discussion once that is out of some people's systems. Then again, this ain't my show, it's theirs.
On the subject at hand, I'm not really sure how I feel about the admission. Still have to process it.
Comments
I have just started looking into this and will read more later,check it out.
http://www.afpc.org/
Godfather.
You clearly don't live in the South. I know a lot of liberals, and they all have jobs and pay their phone bills and not a single one of them ever threatened to kill Bush. However, I also know a lot of conservatives, and a lot of them have bounced around from job to job, spending stretches of time on welfare or in jail, and often talk about Obama while they discuss the number of guns they own
uhhh ... what point are you trying to get across with this right-wing organization? ... these are the guys that aim to profit from foreign policy decisions ... these are the kind of people that ultimately push america into conflicts in the name of greed ...
well then shoot me a address to look into.
Godfather.
what is it you want looking into?
history of US foreign policy? immigration stats?
I would like to learn about foreign policy in the united states, as you said I clearly don't know anything about it
and as much it pains me to agree on this with you you're right so if you could point me in the right direction that would be great, thanks
Godfather.
http://zinnedproject.org/posts/category ... ign-policy
What do I think?
I think you obviously have no idea how awful the threat of militant Islam is. If you did, you and the others pleading the case of "being nice to the killers" would stop.
But then again, maybe you wouldn't. Who cares.
thank you.
Godfather.
Doubt it
no problem
There is absolutely nobody in here that is "being nice to the killers".
If someone is captured and proven to be a threat to the U.S., and if they decide to get information out of them, people are saying they should use ways that are effective, not ones that garner the response that they want to hear.
Do you have a stance or an opinion on the effectiveness of tactics such as waterboarding or other torture?
DO YOU THINK THEY WORK EFFECTIVELY??? Please, I'm dying to know your answer.
have you sobered up?
you came very close to breaking my heart
with last night's gutteral derisions of democrats
and particularly females
of which i am both
just checking?
gayle
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
nobody said "be nice to the killers". nobody ever said that. where in the thread are you reading that? we said it is wrong to hold people without charge and due process and that "torture is wrong in all cases" and that "human rights are above any law"and you read it as "be nice to the killers" and it seems that your attitude is "well if we can't torture them and get intelligence that may or may not be correct, hell lets just let them go" and that attitude and way of thinking is what i find the most disturbing.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
do you think because the stuff that Bush authorized was not on American soil or his "own people", that this excuses his mass murder of Iraqis and Afghans? Sure SH was an asshole, but really, you don't think that GWB was bad enough to warrant the same punishment? He authorized the killings of thousands upon thousands of CIVILIANS. Women, Men, Children. He disgusts me. They were not casualties of war. They were casualties of mass murder by the American government.
If you're going to hang Saddam, you'd better load up the firing squad for Bush and Cheney.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
To sum up...
Republicans:
Ok with torture.(not OK when done by someone else)
OK with preemptive war
OK with killing of millions of innocents.(not OK when done by someone else)
Evidence is not needed
Cannot look through the eyes of a someone from another country
Cannot look critically at any American foreign policy.
There are many many many more things wrong in this thread and have been pointed out, with evidence and dismissed without.
Have baggers been beaten with the stupid stick? Turn off Fox new for a few months and let your system be purged. Your brains have been molded to the point where there is no more ability for critical thought.
and only became one when he gave the US the bird. before that he wasnt so bad.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
about time someone is saying something about this....of course eric holder will not bring charges against ol' dubya....
Bush's Waterboarding Admission Prompts Calls For Criminal Probe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/1 ... 82354.html
WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday joined a growing chorus in the human rights community calling for a special prosecutor to investigate whether former president George W. Bush violated federal statutes prohibiting torture.
In his new memoir and ensuing book tour, Bush has repeatedly admitted that he directly authorized the waterboarding of three terror suspects. Use of the waterboard, which creates the sensation of drowning, has been an iconic and almost universally condemned form of torture since the time of the Spanish Inquisition.
Except for a brief period during which a handful of Bush administration lawyers insisted that the exigencies of interrogating terror suspects justified its use, waterboarding has always been considered illegal by the Justice Department. It is also a clear violation of international torture conventions.
The ACLU is urging Attorney General Eric Holder to ask Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate Bush. For nearly three years now, Durham has been acting as a special prosecutor investigating a variety of torture-related matters involving government officials considerably lower on the food chain. Just this Tuesday, it was widely reported that Durham had cleared the CIA's former top clandestine officer and others in the destruction of agency videotapes showing waterboarding of terror suspects -- but that he would continue pursuing other aspects of his investigation.
"The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President's acknowledgment that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history," the group wrote in its letter to Holder.
"The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for Mr. Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture."
In his new memoir, "Decision Points," Bush recalls his thought process after CIA director George Tenet asked for permission to waterboard alleged al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in early 2003. Bush's response: "Damn right."
In an interview with the Times of London published this week, Bush used that language again, this time with feeling. James Harding described asking Bush if he authorized the use of the waterboard on Mohammed.
"Damn right!" he barks. "We capture the guy, the chief operating officer of al-Qaeda, who kills 3,000 people. We felt he had the information about another attack. He says: 'I'll talk to you when I get my lawyer.' I say: 'What options are available and legal?' "
In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, Bush explained himself this way:
We believe America's going to be attacked again. There's all kinds of intelligence comin' in. And-- and-- one of the high value al Qaeda operatives was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the chief operating officer of al Qaeda... ordered the attack on 9/11. And they say, "He's got information." I said, "Find out what he knows." And so I said to our team, "Are the techniques legal?" He says, "Yes, they are." And I said, "Use 'em."
LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?
BUSH: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer, but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do.
The so-called "Torture Memos" were drafted by officials in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under the strict supervision of the vice president's office -- and were withdrawn within a matter of months when other Bush lawyers found them utterly unjustifiable.
For the record, the first time Bush admitted his direct role in waterboarding was actually back in early June, when he casually acknowledged what he'd done and said he'd do it again.
"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Mich., in a paid appearance. "I'd do it again to save lives."
I wrote at the time about the outraged response from some former military and intelligence officials.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the New York Democrat who (for now) chairs the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, called for a criminal investigation into Bush's conduct on Tuesday.
He told MSBNC host Ed Schultz on Wednesday:
[T]he United States has always considered waterboarding torture except during the Bush administration. We prosecuted Japanese generals for waterboarding people. We prosecuted American soldiers for waterboarding people and pressed that cage. The current attorney general Mr. Holder has said that waterboarding is torture. We`ve always regarded it as torture and under our statute, under our international law, we are bound to prosecute. The president has a duty under the constitution to take care the laws of faith to be executed and now that former President Bush said that he personally ordered waterboarding, there must be at least an investigation and a special prosecutor.
Nadler called Bush's admission a "smoking gun." But, he said, he was dubious that Holder would act.
"Judging by the record of this attorney general, he will not pay attention, he will not respond," Nadler said. The reason: "[T]his administration, unfortunately, has taken the opinion -- has taken the attitude that they`re not going to look at any criminal actions within the prior administration. They say, let`s look forward, not backward, by that standard no one would ever prosecute any crime and this is a violation of our obligations under the torture treaty, under the torture convention, that Ronald Reagan signed."
Also on Tuesday, a Republican suggested for the first time that a torture investigation in Congress might not be out of the question. As Think Progress reported, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) told MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan that he's "not afraid of going after the Bush administration."
Amnesty International called for a criminal investigation on Wednesday.
"Under international law, anyone involved in torture must be brought to justice, and that does not exclude former President George W. Bush. If his admission is substantiated, the USA has the obligation to prosecute him," said senior director Claudio Cordone. "In the absence of a US investigation, other states must step in and carry out such an investigation themselves."
Indeed, British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson was quoted in the British press this week as saying Bush's admission could leave him open to arrest and possible prosecution if he visits countries that have ratified the UN torture convention.
That includes a good chunk of the globe.
"George W Bush has confessed to ordering waterboarding, which in the view of almost all experts clearly passes the severe pain threshold in the definition of torture in international law," Robertson said. "[H]e is an ex-head of state so he is not entitled to immunity from arrest and trial."
Robertson added: "So his retirement travel plans may well be circumscribed, although he never ventured abroad before he became President, and no doubt made the statements in his book having been advised of this potential consequence."
Here's the full text of the ACLU letter:
Dear Attorney General Holder:
The American Civil Liberties Union respectfully urges you to refer to Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham the question of whether former president George W. Bush's conduct related to the interrogation of detainees by the United States violated the anti-torture statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 2340A.
In his recently published memoirs, President Bush discusses his authorization of the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. He states, for example, that he "approved the use of the [enhanced] interrogation techniques," including waterboarding, on Abu Zubaydah, and that he responded to a request to waterboard Khalid Sheik Mohammed by stating: "Damn right." George W. Bush, Decision Points 169-70 (2010).
The Department of Justice has made clear that waterboarding is torture and, as such, a crime under the federal anti-torture statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2340A(c). The United States has historically prosecuted waterboarding as a crime. In light of the admission by the former President, and the legally correct determination by the Department of Justice that waterboarding is a crime, you should ensure that Mr. Durham's current investigation into detainee interrogations encompasses the conduct and decisions of former President Bush.
The ACLU acknowledges the significance of this request, but it bears emphasis that the former President's acknowledgement that he authorized torture is absolutely without parallel in American history. The admission cannot be ignored. In our system, no one is above the law or beyond its reach, not even a former president. That founding principle of our democracy would mean little if it were ignored with respect to those in whom the public most invests its trust. It would also be profoundly unfair for Mr. Durham to focus his inquiry on low-level officials charged with implementing official policy but to ignore the role of those who authorized or ordered the use of torture.
Failure to fully investigate the role of the former President in the use of torture would also severely compromise our ability to advocate for human rights in other countries. The United States has been a champion of that cause for over half a century. Recently, while in Indonesia, President Obama urged that country to acknowledge the human rights abuses of the Suharto regime. He stated unequivocally that "[w]e can't go forward without looking backwards." Without suggesting that our own experience is equivalent, it is clear that the United States's authority to push for such accountability in other countries, and the willingness of those countries to follow our advice, would quickly unravel if we failed even to investigate abuses authorized by our own officials.
The ACLU understands the gravity of this matter and appreciates the difficulty of the Department of Justice's task. A nation committed to the rule of law, however, cannot simply ignore evidence that its most senior leaders authorized torture.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. For your convenience, I am attaching the ACLU's letter of March 17, 2009, in which we asked you to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate crimes relating to the abuse of detainees.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
they have clearly lost their minds.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Is that why you funded death squads in Nicaragua?
Is that also why you invaded Panama?
Is it the reason why you continue an illegal blockade of Cuba?
Nobody knows about this shit. We only know what we are spoon fed.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The U.S invasion of Iraq was an act of terrorism.
EVERYBODY should know about this shit. ignorance is no excuse. you know your media is bullshit. you know theres more to the story than they tell you. educate yourself.. no one is gonna do it for you.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
BEST IDEA HEARD IN A LONG, LONG TIME!!!
Members of Congress should be Compelled to wear uniforms just like NASCAR drivers…
So we could identify their corporate sponsors.
Godfather.
Since you brought up the "dead" thread, don't really find it fair that you haven't been banned for provocation....just saying
I got memories. I got shit so much it don't show."
Let it be - it's up to the mods. No need to stir things up again.
Back to the subject of the thread....
What's provocative about the mere mention of another thread? Looks to me like you're the one stirring shit up here, not Paul David....just saying.
I looked through that thread and I really still don;t see why anyone would be banned over that. All controversial discussions will tend to get heated and even a bit personal from time to time, if you let it go, it comes back to a good discussion once that is out of some people's systems. Then again, this ain't my show, it's theirs.
On the subject at hand, I'm not really sure how I feel about the admission. Still have to process it.