But Whitehouse is one of the few on the Hill who get it.

But . . . aren’t these people supposed to be at least as intelligent as you or I?

One would hope…

How audacious!

I’m a little jaded and cranky today. Can you tell? *g*

It seems to me that, should there be some type of truth and reconciliation commission, the decision about immunity in exchange for cooperation, should be decided, wherever possible, by the victim. The goal of truth and reconciliation in South Africa was to bring change to a brutal system of government and to reconcile those harmed with their abusers in the name of peace. So far, I’ve heard nothing about the role the unlawfully tortured would play in the process. Only those who have been tortured or unlawfully imprisoned (or renditioned) have the moral authority to offer immunity to those who have caused them harm.

Just as Bush shopped for the Attorney’s and Assistants to give him the answer he already had, so too has Leahy and his DINO and GOP cohorts shopped the “expert witness” list. How many inside The Beltway want accountability for extra Constitutional exploits or war crimes of the last Regime. How easy and self serving to hold hearing or Commissions when the worse case for someone called to expiate his sin is saying “I’m sorry and I have seen the errors of my ways and will not torture or maim or murder any innocents again”. It sure would have saved time, energy and money to hold War Crime Commissions instead of Tribunals after WWII. Why didn’t Truman and Churchill understand!

I wish Whitehouse would make up my mind. First he wants unfettered investigations and prosecutions when warranted, then seemed to back slide in favor of commissions, then expects Obamas DoJ to be a determinate concerning investigations and prosecutions, yet Obam wants to forgive and forget; mainly forget. Seems to me Whitehouse has become Leahy on steroids so far as slippery linguistics is concerned

I continue to think that it is too early for a “Truth Commission,” which I think is best reserved for late in the process, when the statute of limitations has expired on many of the main crimes.

I fear that its use too early in the process will wind up too much like the Iran-Contra hearings, unleashing platoons of Ollie Norths on us for the next generation.

I would rather see a Special Prosecutor with a broad mandate. Why can’t it be set up to favor the Archie Cox’s and Leon Jaworskis rather than the Ken Starrs?

We need real prosecutions, not public posturing.

Bob in HI

In a hearing during the last congress, the judiciary committee granted a blanket immunity to Ms Goodling. My reaction at the time was damn why did they do that. Was this one of those times that it was reasonable?

Thanks, Christy. It’s clear Cornyn and Rivkin want absolute immunity for everyone involved: no further investigations.

Dems think that actually indicting these criminal would be politically impossible- and ignoring the crimes would hurt them too- so they might LIKE the middle ground of proving that the fuckers were criminals and then having to say “Oh Hell- we CAN’T prosecute em cause of the immunity deals.”

I’d bet thousands that Bush and Cheney will never see an indictment.

Some of the goopers are now saying “No Hearings” they should be tried if guilty (knowing full well that the justice department doesn’t have the stomach for it.

Iran Contra. The immunity granting in that was a mess, and it undercut the whole of criminal prosecutions altogether, and has stood as an example of what not to do in prosecutorial circles for governmental commissions ever since.

So one can hope that the errors in Iran-Contra “immunized” those that would immunize. It wopuld be a bit ironic if a case that was tainted (and I would say intentionally so by the Republicans on that Committee), and failed to provide clear convincing evidence of the President’s involvement, ends up actually dragging down Cheney and the son of the Vice-President of THAT time.

Reminds me of that old Texas saying “Fool me one shame on you, fool me twice shame on ME!”

My understanding was that in Watergate, immunity was given to people who had to fear serious charges. If they didn’t cooperate, they went to jail. You’re right, in Iran-Contra, North and Poindexter were given immunity long before any cases had been assembled against them, so they got up and made a lot of vague, general comments. Then, they claimed “We talked about that, you can’t use it against us!” Complete clusterf***.

Which branch of govt is responsible for appointing a special prosecutor? I think it’s the exec, in which case both Obama & Holder have announced they ain’t gonna do it.

Reminds me of that old Texas saying “Fool me one shame on you, fool me twice shame on ME!”

Gosh that’s the same as an old NY saying

Assuming that Bush, Cheney, Addington, Libby, Gonzo, Rummy, Yoo, and Bybee are not invited to testify and won’t therefore get immunity, Truth Comissions seem like a good idea. The interrogators who actually got their hands dirty torturing should not be invited to testify either. All of the above should be prosecuted.

The beaurocrats in the middle who went along to get along are the only ones who should have any opportunity to trade truth for immunity.

And the tell at today’s hearings was that no one asked Rivkin and Rabkin (the 2 R plants), who were arguing that the only appropriate procedure was domestic prosecution only, the following Q: are you saying that, if as President Obama and AG Holder have announed, they will not prosecute, then there is no remedy possible if members of the Bush administration have committed crimes?

If someone stumbles on a smoking gun with Bush’s fingerprints on it, the decision to indict would create something like a war zone in the country. I’m up for it.

This thing is VERY interesting. You have to think that Obama wants to get the word out about the criminality of the prior administration but doesn’t want to touch prosecuting them with a ten foot pole- I understand his nervousness.

Um, the smoking gun would be both W & Cheney’s public admissions that they personally authorized torture, as “enhanced interrogation techniques” have been so designated by that military judge (don’t remember exactly her position, but I think that’s it).

Jaded and cranky is good. At least I don’t feel like the Lone Ranger wandering around out there in the wilderness.

You are so right: Myriad problems, limited resources. However, I just don’t see how we can do anything less than investigating thoroughly, and prosecuting where necessary. Either we’re a nation of laws or we’re not. We must reestablish our credibility in the eyes of the world and this is the best place to start that I can think of.

Immunity for low-level operators in exchange for flipping on higher-ups. I’m for that. Immunity for The Principals? No deal, no exceptions. And hard-core jail time for those convicted of felonies. Again, no exceptions.

Bush defense:

“How was anyone to know that this was illegal? I had my best attorneys tell me it wasn’t- and I was never admitted to law school”

bureaucrat Gah. I need spellcheck.

Bush:

“Since when is stupidity a prosecutable offense?”

Yep … we have to drag Yoo, and the other Legal Eagles behind this, before a special Prosecutor.

I nominate LHP !

We have so many kinds of witnesses in this situation. Classified, whistleblowers, politicians, etc.. Many have 5th amendment issues that we know about. Many have answers they don’t want to give, but may pay a high price for such reticence.
However, let the law dictate their punishment. We expect Mr. Maddoff to have his mansions, jewelry and all of his toys removed from his possession and his worthless carcass incarcerated for the remainder of his days. He can learn to clean a prison toilet for something useful to do. The people that caused a few wars, the looting of the treasury, the collapse of our nation, the crimes against humanity and again, etc…. deserve punishment the likes of which we do not usually dole out. For if we do not, they will repeat it tomorrow, as they are repeating the criminal behavior today.

IANAL, but as I understand the short version: client to lawyer, “I want to commit a crime, and you write an opinion that it isn’t.” That is not a defense, and the lawyers who write that opinion are also subject to prosecution. IOW, Cheney (forget W who was not in the loop originally) determined the outcome of the legal opinion before it was written.

I nominate Redd!!

Any “truth and reconciliation commission” needs to reserve the power to initiate prosecutions as crimes are discovered, not merely point to criminality; any such commission must be able to rely on an independent prosecutor. If crimes are not prosecuted this will be nothing more than Iran Contra on steroids, and we will not have learned anything from history.

As Independent Counsel Walsh closed his work on Iran Contra:

The Iran/contra investigation will not end the kind of abuse of power that it addressed any more than the Watergate investigation did. The criminality in both affairs did not arise primarily out of ordinary venality or greed, although some of those charged were driven by both. Instead, the crimes committed in Iran/contra were motivated by the desire of persons in high office to pursue controversial policies and goals even when the pursuit of those policies and goals was inhibited or restricted by executive orders, statutes or the constitutional system of checks and balances.

The tone in Iran/contra was set by President Reagan. He directed that the contras be supported, despite a ban on contra aid imposed on him by Congress. And he was willing to trade arms to Iran for the release of Americans held hostage in the Middle East, even if doing so was contrary to the nation’s stated policy and possibly in violation of the law.

The lesson of Iran/contra is that if our system of government is to function properly, the branches of government must deal with one another honestly and cooperatively. When disputes arise between the Executive and Legislative branches, as they surely will, the laws that emerge from such disputes must be obeyed. When a President, even with good motive and intent, chooses to skirt the laws or to circumvent them, it is incumbent upon his subordinates to resist, not join in. Their oath and fealty are to the Constitution and the rule of law, not to the man temporarily occupying the Oval Office. Congress has the duty and the power under our system of checks and balances to ensure that the President and his Cabinet officers are faithful to their oaths.

We are looking at yet another breach of duty by the President, and it is the solemn obligation of Congress to do their duty as a co-equal power in checking the President gone rogue.

yeah- I think there’s probably not much to the ignorance defense in court- but it might play on Main Street. America believes that Bush was too stupid to have known what the fuck he was doing.

Very nicely stated.

I want to do some thrill-seeker liquor store holdups. My lawyer has issued a letter stating that it’s not a crime to do so. If I get popped, I’m A-OK and so is my attorney.

Um….Nope.

That would be a great choice as well … are you up for it, Christy ?

“Hey…I was out on my mountain bike that day. Oh…it was that other day? That was the day I choked on a pretzel. I can’t be expected to remember stuff in that condition. Another day? I was flying onto the deck of an aircraft carrier and didn’t get the memo…”

And the list goes on…

…and asking for someone to write an opinion saying that a particular crime is not a crime indicates that 1) the person knows that it is a crime; and 2) that he intends to do that crime, doesn’t it?

Sorry for the OT, but I’ve gotta run and wanted to leave this with you fine people:

Obama intends to nominate Craig Fugate, the director of Florida’s Division of Emergency Management, to head FEMA.

What, no one available from the International Arabian Horse Association?

And, as a special treat, America’s Favorite Crazy Uncle — Pat Buchanan’s head is about to explode on Tweety while discussing Obama and Rush.

Presumably their language would have been more artful than my simplification, and in fact they may never have asked at all in so many words. As I am fond of saying, anyone who graduated from kindergarten knows what his boss wants without the boss having to actually ask.

There may be a few people that immunity might be worthwhile for, but by and large it is overrated. Those in important positions will lie or obfuscate. Or invoke their 5th Amendment protections, I think it would be worth it just to see them do that.

Also let’s not forget proffers. If someone wants immunity there have to be extensive and detailed proffers made as to what they will testify about.

I have to say that what I am seeing so far is a lot of punting and people not doing their jobs. It is another disappointment, one now of many, that Obama is not going to have his DOJ aggressively investigate the most worst and most lawless Administration in our history. Have you noticed that Obama is saying he has not problem moving on multiple fronts with regard to foreign policy, the economy, entitlements, healthcare, etc. but when it comes to investigating the Bush era suddenly he doesn’t have the time or the energy?

Is Buchanan doin his “I’m really pissed off” act again?

He can turn it on and off like water…His sister is a better actor.

Fuck Immunity!

There’s enough circumstantial evidence right here to hang the lot of them.

Exactly. But the act of soliciting an opinion on the matter proves intent, IMO.

ShawnB posted this link over at Greenwald, and I think it’s worth contemplating. The Jersey Girls have just sent an open letter to Leahy, telling him that a Truth Commission is a bad idea.

Since they were completely involved in the 9/11 Commission (and actively pushed the process throughout), there thoughts are worth considering.

Without reading it, what is their alternative?

From Newsweek:

“But Specter argued that the keys to unraveling these and other lingering mysteries about Bush-era interrogations resides within the Justice Department and ought to stay there. He pointed, as one example, to a soon-to-be-completed Justice Department ethics report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) into the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos authorizing waterboarding and other controversial policies under President Bush. Among the new disclosures this week was an Oct. 23, 2001, OLC memo that also told the Bush White House it could use the U.S. military to round up terror suspects, storm apartment and office buildings and set up roadblocks inside the United States on the grounds that Fourth Amendment restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures did not apply in the war on terror. The memo, written by conservative law professor John Yoo, also suggested that First Amendment guarantees protecting freedom of speech and the press could be suspended “to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” (Yoo has not responded to a request for comment about the memo.)

Specter noted that the OPR probe is examining whether the authors of the OLC memos deliberately signed off on unreasonable interpretations of the law in order to provide “legal cover” for the extreme tactics the Bush White House wanted to use. “If they did that knowingly, there is mens rea,” Specter said, using the Latin term for a guilty mind. “I’d have to search the criminal code, but it sounds to me like it may fall within criminal conduct.”

You have my vote on the strength of correct grammar (you and I). Booyah!

Is Buchanan doin his “I’m really pissed off” act again?

You would be most correct.

He can turn it on and off like water…His sister is a better actor.

I still maintain I’ve never seen them on a set together; I’m thinkin’ wig, makeup, and a chair with wheels to get between studios.

How else is Pat gonna make up all that money he has obviously lost in the markets?

Good point- but the distaff character actually behaves as if she BELIEVES the bullshit she says.

Pat probably keeps his money in the mattress- so he can FEEL it when he tries to sleep

Jane’s new post: IL-05 and Geoghegan: The Day After

Specter seems to think that Woo may have a bad case of mens rea. Is that contagious?

“So I suggested, let’s mail this book, written by one of America’s preeminent prosecuting attorneys, to every DA in the country since it sets forth such a prime facia argument for prosecution.”

[snip]

February 7 all 2,200 books in the mail making to district attorneys from New York to Hawaii. In all it came to 5 pallet loads of Bugliosi’s book, weighing in at two tons.

Reached for comment, the author, Vincent Bugliosi, voiced hope that Alexander’s efforts will finally prod at least someone with criminal legal authority to act.

“I hope that this increases the possibility that a courageous prosecutor, committed to the rule of law, will hear the cries for justice from the graves of the thousands who had their lives violently cut short and take the ample case I have laid out in this book before an American jury to let them decide whether George W Bush and others from his administration are guilty or not guilty, and if guilty and, if found guilty, what the punishment should be,” Bugliosi said.

http://impeachforpeace.org/imp…..og/?p=5966

Just an FYI,

- Tom

Amen!

If someone stumbles on a smoking gun with Bush’s fingerprints on it, the decision to indict would create something like a war zone in the country. I’m up for it.

Isn’t that what http://www.afterdowningstreet.com was/is about?

Remember the Downing Street memo(s)?

Bush defense:

“How was anyone to know that this was illegal? I had my best attorneys tell me it wasn’t- and I was never admitted to law school”

Having poor lawyers isn’t a defense. If you can’t get better lawyers when you’re president, then it’s your own damn fault.

Screw the “Truth Commission.”
We already know the truth, and yes, we can handle it.

Dammit. We want them in jail.

I feel so pessimistic that hearings and investigations to get the facts and truth won’t happen.

This is just ulcer tease to my soul that longs for justice at the top. Not the Lindi Englands only.