Sorry, folks, can't gloss over this one just because we
have a great guy as President. not possible.
It's obvious now why Ms. Pelosi took impeachment off the table
back in early 2006;
Because obviously any investigation of the bush
administration for the fraudulent war in Iraq would likely directly lead to democratic complicity with the war, and further, with "enhanced interrogation techniques".
IMHO, Pelosi preemptively taking impeachment off the table destroys her credibility forever. this action stomped on the whole notion of checks and balances and calls into doubt the very credibility of our governing system.
here's some thoughts from David Swanson on torture:
First, torture DID work. It forced false agreement with war lies, helping to launch a long-desired illegal war. And it persuaded many Americans that some very scary and very foreign people were out to get them, people so scary that they had to be tortured in order to talk with them, people whose every false utterance, aimed at stopping the pain, instead generated color-coded horror warnings.
Second, torture has boosted recruitment for anti-U.S. organizations tremendously, horribly damaged the United States' image, stripped U.S. diplomats of the power to address human rights abuses abroad, as well as stripping U.S. citizens of a clear moral right to protest being tortured, and set an example that has spread far and wide. Torture has brutalized participants and witnesses, and we are all witnesses, and it has destroyed lives both through torture to the point of death and through torture to the point of unbearable life.
Third, if you're going to violate particular laws and treaties, you can either repeal them and leave all the other ones intact, or you can simply proceed criminally, thereby assaulting the whole structure of law, leaving everyone in doubt whether ANY laws will be enforced against important people. Our government has taken the latter approach and redefined crimes as "policy differences," which is why torture is ongoing and no criminal penalty will deter its future expansion or the commission of other crimes of whatever sort by high officials.
Fourth, if torture had produced life-saving information, we would have long since heard that fact shouted from every television studio. In fact, we did hear such claims made. They just all turned out to be fictional.
This basically reinforces the repuglican view of the unitary/Nixonian exec., i.e. if it's the president's policy, then it's legal. shut up and go away. IF this is how we're going to run things, I'm no longer sure why we even NEED a congress-- seems superfluous at this point. nothing but a feeble formality.
As far as the democrats "not knowing" about torture, this from GG puts that nonsense to rest:
Jay Rockefeller was one of the key Democrats briefed on the torture methods who never objected. But it's far worse than that. In September, 2006, Rockefeller was one of 12 Senate Democrats to vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act, one of the principal purposes of which was to explicitly authorize the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program" to proceed (even though it continues to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions). Thus, not only did Rockefeller remain silent when continuously briefed on illegal torture methods by the CIA, he then voted to legalize those methods by voting in favor of one of the most Draconian laws in modern American history. That law also retroactively immunized government officials from any liability for past lawbreaking.
Rockefeller is not just any Democrat. He is the individual whom the Democratic Senate caucus thereafter elected -- and still chooses -- to lead them on all matters relating to intelligence. Just consider how compromised he is and they are when it comes to investigating abuses by the intelligence community over the last six years. Rockefeller was complicit in all of those abuses, and the Democrats voted for him -- and still support him -- as their Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. How can Rockefeller possibly preside over meaningful investigations into conduct and policies -- including the destruction of the videotapes and the conduct which those videotapes would reveal -- of which he approved? And how can Senate Democrats pretend to be outraged at such policies when the leader they chose supports them?
Note the retroactive immunity part of the deal. and that's why all of the talk about prosecution is a farce.
Voting in favor of the MCA and thinking the CIA would play nice after getting this approval is a farce. not believeable.
Anyone thinking this is not being looked at by world leaders should heed this:
The King of Jordan said it best. The Middle East is watching to see if America goes by the rule of law. It will determine a lot on how groups work with the US. Also, many of our European Allies would not give us critical information due to the torture.
That's just for starters.
My emails to Ed Schultz, Thom Hartman, etc., will be going out shortly.