Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This Yahoo article covers some of the same ground here. My favorite quote is from a Republican: "We're trying to turn the page and he keeps rising from the grave to haunt us." <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599189785000" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/0...89785000</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't see a point in pursuing this. Sooner or later we have to get past the bitterness that divides Americans. The ridiculous impeachment of Clinton was conservative retribution for Nixon. Now liberals want to chase Bush and members of his administration as retribution for Clinton. EVERY president is forced to make decisions that those on the opposite side would see as unethical or even illegal. But at the same time, to a CERTAIN extent Nixon's famous remark holds true: <<Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.>> The president's powers are so broad and so loosely defined by the Constitution that it becomes very difficult to say something he did is illegal. Let’s save the prosecution of former presidents for really serious and clear-cut illegal actions. Deciding what to define as torture does not meet that standard. If Bush truly violated International law the International Criminal Court should prosecute him. And as we all know, that just isn’t going to happen. Why? Because it is not at all clear that Bush violated International Law.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I can't agree with that. Quite the contrary; I think it's important that it be made clear that the law cannot be whatever the President (or his hired gun lawyers) says it is. That's an important principle (one would think) even for Republicans, as it prevents a Democratic president from overreaching and deciding what the law is also. I don't want it as retribution for Clinton; talk about an apple and an orange when looking at the two cases (!). But I think it's important - even vital - that SOMEONE who enabled this great country to torture people, in violation of treaties we signed and were obligated to, as well as US law - be held accountable. If we just let it slide, it's just about certain that a future less-than-scrupulous president will look at this as evidence that he or his lawyers can essentially determine that the law is whatever they say it is, and apply that concept to torture again, or something else we wouldn't like very much. I don't buy the idea that Nixon's remark "holds true" at all.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder All the Cheneys can shut up any time now. <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/13/liz-cheney-suggests-obama-siding-with-terrorists/" target="_blank">http://politicalticker.blogs.c...rorists/</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ She probably is crazy, but Obama just announced that he will seek to block release of the photos.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt ^^So then do you suppose that she will retract her statements? Not likely.
Originally Posted By SuperDry So, we're now back to "anyone that points out mistakes made by the US is on the side of the terrorists"? That's so 2002, and I had hoped we had moved beyond it by now.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're not with us, you're siding with the terrorists. There is no middle ground. SuperDry, why are you siding with the terrorists?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Well gee - I'm almost aligned with Liz Cheney on this one. I can't see what good can come from releasing these photos - especially 2,000 of them! What's THAT about? Yes - I understand this is in response to a FOIA request. I also suspect that the greatest impact may be to the republican party in general and the bush administration specifically, and I have no problem with that. But there's got to be some limit as to how much of our own dirty laundry we air in public, and this may cross that line. I realize that I'm adopting what's considered a "conservative" position on this, and yes that makes me suspicious of my own gut instincts. I could yet change my mind, but as of now this seems like a bad idea, and something that needlessly inflames an already volatile situation. If suppressing these thousands of torture photos favors those responsible for them in the first place, so be it. We can still bring accountability to the culprits without plastering the world's media with these ugly ugly images.
Originally Posted By gadzuux And then, 90 minutes later ... <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/13/national/w093422D21.DTL&tsp=1" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/...TL&tsp=1</a> In reversal, Obama seeks to block abuse photos (05-13) 13:00 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) -- President Barack Obama will try to block the court-ordered release of hundreds of photos showing U.S. troops allegedly abusing prisoners, reversing his position after military commanders warned the graphic images could stoke anti-American sentiment and endanger soldiers. << If the president would just check with me first, I could save him a lot of convtroversy!
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt Actually Gad, that announcement was already revealed in post #27.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Okay. I didn't get the news until it was posted on SFGate - sometime after 11am. It's unusual for me to espouse views shared by conservatives, so I thought I was really going out on a limb here. It was gratifying to see that Obama aligned with me on this one, although perhaps for different reasons.
Originally Posted By Mr X FINALLY..the game that gadzuux has been up to this whole time is revealed! It's an honor to have you here on the forums, Mr. President!
