Originally Posted By Mr X ***Why haven't they been fighting harder to get those? Why haven't we seen Contempt of Congress citations flying? Why haven't Bush and Cheney been impeached? The Democrats in Congress have been too timid to do anything.*** This has baffled me as well. Perhaps I'm missing something as far as political ramifications are concerned (didn't stop Congress from going after Nixon though, did it?), but all I can honestly come up with is that they actually fear(ed?) President Bush. Sounds pretty tin foil, I know, but honestly I can't figure out the reasons beyond that. Perhaps they were concerned that a constitutional crisis could present itself in the form of both the President and the Vice-President facing removal, with the next in line being a member of the opposing party...that could be quite a mess. Almost sounds like a coup. I'm open to other interpretations though, as this has really perplexed me.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Or they're afraid they'll be caught themselves.*** That's certainly something to consider.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Again, if there were all these crimes, then the time to do something about it was when they were happening, when they could be prevented. To call for this kangaroo-after-the-fact court stuff sounds an awful lot like pure, partisan bitterness. And from the side that won! LOL
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>all I can honestly come up with is that they actually fear(ed?) President Bush<< If President Bush broke the law, they had no reason to fear him. They just had to present facts and evidence to support their charges. And if they believe he committed high crimes and did nothing out of some fear, then they should resign at once. The reason their was no impeachment is that there was nothing to impeach Bush for. Nothing.
Originally Posted By ecdc While I agree that it might be seen as partisan, and I do have a desire to just "move on," I find I'm more sympathetic to gadzuux perspective. I find it to be a terribly disturbing message that you can do whatever you want in the executive and get away with it so long as your own party is in charge. I cannot fathom excusing what went on for the past eight years in the name of "good feelings" and "let's all just get along." If it's seen as partisan or sour grapes from the winners, then Americans deserve corrupt government and cannot demand anything better. We will get exactly what we're willing to tolerate. If we tolerate black sites, torture, outing CIA agents, twisted intel to support a war, etc., etc., then we have no right to complain when it happens. None.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If President Bush broke the law, they had no reason to fear him.*** I disagree. Seeing as how he so willingly shredded the constitution and had no problem taking away peoples' rights, I think he could've become very dangerous if cornered. Granted, I know that's along the lines of "tin foil hats", but I do have a vague impression that there was some real apprehension not towards Bush the president, but rather Bush the potentially dangerous enemy. You're either with us or you're against us, after all. Right?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>We will get exactly what we're willing to tolerate.<< And Americans voted out this bunch. And the horse they rode in on. History will not judge this administration well. What more is needed, really? With the enormous financial crisis and all that's going on, do we really think the best thing for the nation is some protracted Democrat vs. Republican hearings that ultimately will result in some meaningless, finger-wagging report? This whole thing sounds a lot like Democrats right away overplaying their hand and being sore winners.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think he could've become very dangerous if cornered.<< What would he do, make congressmen disappear? The truth is, they weren't scared of the Bush administration -- they were scared of the voters. They didn't want to look "weak on defense" or unpatriotic, so they went along with all sorts of things they now perhaps wished they hadn't. The mechanisms to stop (or stall) almost all of this were there all along. They didn't do so at the time.
Originally Posted By charming husband + The Democrats in Congress have been too timid to do anything.....+ No, they were very busy doing all that they proposed that they would do their first 100 days in office! LOL!
Originally Posted By dshyates You know, the last person to authorize water boarding an American, we hanged by the neck until dead. "Hangman, Hangman, Swinging from the Gallows Pole." I'm just saying'.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>What more is needed, really?<< Precedent that if you do that stuff while in office, you will pay for it. If the new administration is always going to let bygones be bygones with the old administration, then any administration can get away with anything. And American "values" will continue to be an international joke. Appropriately so. >>The truth is, they weren't scared of the Bush administration -- they were scared of the voters. << Feh. Scared of how the press would report their actions to the voters. Scared of how the "other side" would use whatever they did to their political advantage. Scared of everything except screwing up their country. Still are. Wusses.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If the new administration is always going to let bygones be bygones with the old administration, then any administration can get away with anything.> Bingo. That's why this is important. Read Cheney's comments in the OP's link. He's saying, essentially, that everything we did was legal because we said it was legal. We had our own lawyers draft "opinions" to say these things were legal, therefore they were. No. That's not supposed to be how American law works. And that's why there is value to finding out just what has gone on these past 8 years. IN OUR NAME. <Feh. Scared of how the press would report their actions to the voters. Scared of how the "other side" would use whatever they did to their political advantage. Scared of everything except screwing up their country. Still are. Wusses.> Bingo again. The Democrats have been total wusses about this. But that doesn't justify their continuing to be. That said, I wouldn't make investigations a congressional thing. We DO face problems now that congress would be better off focusing on. Congressional hearings, though sometimes useful, too often turn into posturing and could easily be seen (rightly or wrongly) as divisive and partisan. Here's what I think would be better: assign the investigation to some lower or mid-level lawyers from the new Justice Dept. The non-public, almost boring nature of this (at least in its initial phase) will keep it mostly out of the media, out of most people's minds, and therefore mitigate any divisiveness. There will be plenty to uncover. When the truth is uncovered, let it be known. After it is uncovered comes the interesting part. Do we prosecute? It's probably politically untenable to prosecute Bush or Cheney. But someone like John Woo? Absolutely. Alberto Gonzalez? Probably. This shouldn't be congressional either - regular criminal courts can take care of this. Again, political junkies might keep track, but most Americans wouldn't. It wouldn't be divisive, but WOULD be a warning to future administrations - break the law and you will face consequences. Bush and Cheney's punishment will come with the public's knowledge that they did these illegal things, in a way that can't be denied by even their ardent defenders any more (assuming that what I think will come to light DOES come to light). They would never recover their reputations. Perhaps even something along the lines of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission could take place. If you're not familiar, these took place after Mandela came to power, and essentially offered those who committed crimes under the apartheid regime to escape prosecution if they'd just tell the truth about what they did. The country was greatly healed by this; the truth finally came out after years of suppression, and (most of ) the perpetrators took the deal to avoid punishment. We wouldn't even have to have a formal commission (again, accusations of partisanship would surely follow), but simply offer the deal via the courts. We wouldn't have the satisfaction of seeing some of these people take the "perp walk," but more of the truth would probably come out, and that's what's most important to my mind. It IS important that we know what went on here and that the guilty are at least forced to acknowledge it. Or, as several people have said, it will surely happen again. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of "whatever the executive branch says the law is." That MATTERS.
Originally Posted By DAR This should be pursed as soon as: -We lower the unemployment rate to under 1% -We find a way for the jobs to stay here. -We have paid back any debts we owe. -We figure away for everyone to enjoy the same rights ala gay marriage. -Our schools are running efficiently. -We have solved the "global warming"(only in quotes because it's freaking cold here, I for one welcome global warming) -Terrorists and other despots have been brought to justice.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 What do lawyers in the Justice Dept. have to do with lowering the unemployment rate? Or running the schools? Etc.? We are capable of doing more than one thing at a time.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.<< --Dawn Johnsen, Obama's new head of the Office of Legal Counsel <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/14/rachel-maddow-will-obama_n_157864.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...864.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <No but those are more important issues.> But not everyone in the gov't (certainly not in the Justice Dept.) needs to work on those issues. There are enough lawyers in the Justice Dept. to assign some to this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation's past transgressions and reject Bush's corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation's honor be restored without full disclosure.<< --Dawn Johnsen, Obama's new head of the Office of Legal Counsel> Talk about well said! As was this, from the same link (same person writing): "Where is the outrage, the public outcry?! The shockingly flawed content of this memo, the deficient processes that led to its issuance, the horrific acts it encouraged, the fact that it was kept secret for years and that the Bush administration continues to withhold other memos like it--all demand our outrage. Yes, we've seen much of it before. And yes, we are counting down the remaining months. But we must regain our ability to feel outrage whenever our government acts lawlessly and devises bogus constitutional arguments for outlandishly expansive presidential power. Otherwise, our own deep cynicism, about the possibility for a President and presidential lawyers to respect legal constraints, itself will threaten the rule of law--and not just for the remaining nine months of this administration, but for years and administrations to come. " So as the author of the piece put it: "So, Johnsen has got the mettle to bring the American people the remedy. Still, the question remains: will Obama unleash her? "
