These are not my words.
"The President is bound by the Constitution to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ Failure to order a criminal investigation would be a serious dereliction of duty."
-- Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
But they are some strong words.
They are just words, in my opinion, which ring somewhat hollow without mention of an accompanying set of consequences.
More on that after the fold, but first...
... a bit of setting the stage for Congressman Nadler.
For those who might not yet be aware, the man who was sworn in as President after a split Supreme Court decision, pResident Bush, has come out of hiding to go on a tour for the promotion of his new book.
While making the rounds, the unelected George W. Bush took the time to sit down with Matt Lauer.
In that interview, long-suspected war criminal George W. Bush officially converted himself into self-admitted war criminal George W. Bush when admitting to authorizing waterboarding.
And his defense for it? Shades of Nixon:
LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?
BUSH: Because the lawyer said it was legal.
Only worse:
If a lawyer says it's okay for the President to do it, then it's not illegal!
On the heels of that interview, numerous groups have, once again, called for investigations into the admitted war crimes by self-admitted war criminal George W. Bush.
One of those groups calling for investigations into the admitted war crimes by self-admitted war criminal George W. Bush is Amnesty International (h/t The Walrus):
"Under international law, the former President's admission to having authorized acts that amount to torture are enough to trigger the USA's obligations to investigate his admissions and if substantiated, to prosecute him," said Claudio Cordone, Senior Director at Amnesty International.
Another group calling for investigations into the admitted war crimes by self-admitted war criminal George W. Bush is the ACLU:
"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."
And there are a chorus of other groups being joined by individuals.
One of those individuals calling for investigations into the admitted war crimes of self-admitted war criminal George W. Bush is Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
He also has a reminder and some not so kind words for President Obama:
"Waterboarding has long been considered torture – a view shared by the Obama Administration – and committing or ordering torture is a severe crime under both international and U.S. laws, for which we have convicted foreigners and Americans in the past. The President is bound by the Constitution to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’ Failure to order a criminal investigation would be a serious dereliction of duty. With President Bush’s admission, no further excuses or evasions are conscionable."
Congressman Nadler joined Ed Schultz last night on MSNBC, where his criticisms extended to more than just the President, to include President Obama's choice for Attorney General Eric Holder:
SCHULTZ: This is real, genuine new information, in your opinion, and you‘re asking attorney general Eric Holder to do this. Do you think he‘ll do it? And do you think this is the smoking gun?
NADLER: Well, it is a smoking gun. I‘m dubious that he will do it because this 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.
[...]
SCHULTZ: Congressman Nadler, quickly, what do you think the attorney general is going to do? Will he pay attention to this? Will he respond?
NADLER: Judging by the record of this attorney general, he will not pay attention, he will not respond.
SCHULTZ: OK. Congressman.
NADLER: And that is shameful.
SCHULTZ: It is. And you say it‘s shameful, well doesn‘t that go right to the president‘s desk?
NADLER: Well, that‘s up to him.
SCHULTZ: Congressman, good to have you with us tonight. Thank you.
Dubious, indeed. Shameful, indeed. That's up to him, indeed.
Should the President sit idly by while his Attorney General commits the shameful action of inaction in the face of admissions of clear war crimes, then not only will it be dereliction of his duty... but the shame will be his as well.
But, about that dereliction of duty thing...
It seems to me that, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties and sitting member of the House Judiciary Committee where articles of impeachment originate... congressman Nadler also has a duty.
Am I suggesting that Congressman Nadler file articles of impeachment against or request to begin impeachment hearings against President Obama?
Of course not. It's far too early for that, in my opinion.
But, it is also my opinion that it's not too early for the "impeachment" word to be tossed about, in tandem, as a reminder of consequences that result for derelictions of duties described by the very document a President swears an oath to preserve, protect and defend.
And that "impeachment" word seems/seemed curiously missing from Congressman Nadler's tough talk.
Perhaps because he wasn't asked?
(additional resources)
Full Transcript of The Ed Show