Seriously–that’s an absurd equivalence, and unless Sinaijon has something useful to contribute (beyond suggesting that any investigation of who ordered the torture constitutes a witch hunt), I suggest further such irrelevances be ignored.
Daniel
The part where Bush is the subject of it?
Maybe it’s a bad analogy. But it seemed apt to describe LOHD’s idea that we should just root around and see if we can find something.
I’ve drug this out before, but what the hey. Former federal prosecutor Elizibeth De La Vega drew up a hypothetical indictment charging bush and his senior advisors with violating 18 U.S.C. 371, Conspiracy to Commit Offense or Defraud the United States, a felony with a five year max. I think there’s a greater chance that Bush will win American Idol than get indicted, but it’s an interesting read.
What would he sing, I wonder?
“Let the Eagle Soar,” words and music by John Ashcroft.
There is more evidence of criminality against some American government officials than against some Gitmo detainees.
How can outing Valerie Plame not be a crime?
Intelligence Identities Protection Act. It says:
“Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” The problem, I think, was that Fitzgerald thought he couldn’t prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Armitage, Rove, Libby, Cheney, or any other leakers KNEW that Plame was covert and protected. So no charges, other than Libby’s perjury, were filed. Just my educated guess.
Not at all. If employees of Apple were found to be kidnapping rival software engineers, and it turned out that Steve Jobs had hired an attorney who drafted a letter stating that such kidnappings were legal, and if he repeatedly refused to say whether Apple was engaging in such behavior, investigating Jobs to find out whether he conspired in the kidnapping wouldn’t be a witch hunt; failing to investigate would be crazy negligence.
Daniel
As I asked Sinaijon, what makes you so sure?
“BUSH: One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made.”
"“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes,” Taguba wrote. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
Taguba, whose 2004 investigation documented chilling abuses at Abu Ghraib, is thought to be the most senior official to have accused the administration of war crimes. “The commander in chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture,” he wrote."
He authorized the use of the ever so quaint “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Personally, I think he did so, at least in part, because he found some “law speaking dudes” who twisted the laws and told him it was OK for him to do it. But to pretend it’s a complete witchhunt unworthy of even investigation, I think, is way off base. Do you know something I don’t?
Granted, I haven’t taken Latin for over 20 years. But I seem to remember a phrase from junior high, something like “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat,” or, “Ignorance of the law excuses no one.” IF he met with people and planned to undertake a series of actions, some of which were illegal, and he knew that they would undertake those actions but didn’t know that they were illegal, does his lack of knowledge of their legality have any bearing on his culpability?
Daniel
Did this actually whoosh both Left Hand of Dorkness and Hamlet? From me?
I’m gonna have to raise my profile around here.
:smack: Sorry. I thought it was weird, but chalked it up to a faulty memory on my part.
No current administration would ever support going after a prior congress or administration.
WHY? Because they could be voted out next election and find themselves at the mercy of the law they just passed
I think this is a pernicious attitude. Should police similarly not arrest people for crimes, because they might themselves be arrested one day?
Of course not. The way you avoid being at the mercy of a law you pass (or that you swear to uphold) is to not break it.
Yes, vindictive politicians might try to get revenge. But fear of smallminded twerps shouldn’t stop a politician from upholding the law.
It’s happened in plenty of other countries. It could happen here.
Daniel
It IS pernicious, and it contributes to a political milieu where we just expect politicians to be more interested in slipping the noose than in doing what’s right. And the more we let them pass, the less public service we actually get.
I want accountability. I don’t care if Dems end up getting hoist by it, too. Clean up government, even if that means that every single cent of income and expenditure of individual congresspersons, senators and executive positions is online, on demand. Nothing they do in an official capacity, or in campaign mode, should be a secret. If they’re working for me, I want to keep an eye on their work.
Leaving aside the actual legal issues, which sadly I think we are all completely and hopelessly unqualified to even discuss (I doubt even the lawyers among us really know the details that would be necessary to weigh in meaningfully on Bush and his administrations illegal acts or supposed abuses of power), there is the practical issue. Whether this practical issue is indeed pernicious or not, it’s reality. Simply put, the government isn’t going to rat out itself. It would take some very special people too investigate deeply into conduct that they authorized and at least tacitly approved of, if only through inaction. Not. Gona. Happen. Most humans aren’t put together that way. And Congress? Come on guys…get a grip. THEY aren’t going to touch anything that they had a hand in themselves.
Now, if Bush et al did something that really was illegal (I’m fairly confident the answer to this is: yes) AND was completely unknown to Congress (doubtful but possible)…well, that’s another kettle of fish. And if He/They did this and actually left records of it such that this information can be found (highly unlikely)…? Well…then suddenly you have an opening for something to happen.
I give it about a snow ball’s chance in, say, some of the cooler areas of hell. It COULD happen. Bht the odds, which is what the OP was asking about, are vanishingly small. Unless Bush et al fucked up and actually did that illegal stuff without Congresses knowledge AND left some record behind that the new sheriff in town can get ahold of.
-XT
Look at the massive amount of time, energy, and resources Republicans spent to investigate a lie about a blowjob. All I want is that kind of effort to be spent on investigating and prosecuting things THAT REALLY MATTER.
I realize, of course, that you are right about certain things. I don’t fully expect investigations into improper lobbying, influence peddling, receiving illegal gift, or Cheney’s visitor logs. Those are the kind of things that I think politicians do and the public although paying lip service, aren’t all that upset about. So I don’t expect too much about that.
But we’re talking about torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, outing a CIA agent, obstructing investigations, politicizing the DOJ, and other things that are much more important. If we can spend all that time, money, and political heart over whether a guy lied to cover up a blowjob, we can certainly find the gumption to find out who, where, and why we tortured people, and blatantly violated the law and rights of our citizens.
The biggest problem is, as you pointed out, Congress. They’re complicit in so much of this crap, that they’re not likely to let the spotlight shine on their aiding and abetting. Whether it was changing FISA and granting telecoms immunity, not limiting the torture immediately, or not reigning in the President on pretty much anything, they’re responsible for these actions too. But if the people taking over the white house, and the American people, get a spine, there is hope. And, I’m hoping, the more we learn about the misdeeds (like the allegations that the warrantless wiretapping was, in part aimed at journalists) the more outrage and the more likely investigations will commence.
How did that work out for them? Didn’t look like it was all that successful to me. And btw, they spent all that massive amount of time, energy and resources to search for SOMETHING to get him on (because they just KNEW he had done something wrong) and FOUND the blowjob during their investigations. They didn’t go searching for it.
How many of those things were done completely without the knowledge of Congress? AFAIK…none (at least of a portion of Congress). The thing is, I don’t know what ‘illegal’ really means in this context. If the President does something that is authorized or approved (even tacitly) by Congress…IS it ‘illegal’ in any meaningful sense of the word?
As for the blowjob you keep bringing up…that’s exactly the same kind of witch hunt we would get in this case IMHO. Maybe they would turn up something REAL (if you look hard enough you are bound to find SOMETHING)…but maybe not either. My (limited) understanding of the legal aspects is that most of the things people generally yammer about as being ‘illegal’ really aren’t. They are distasteful and not something we should be proud of…but they aren’t illegal in a real, legal sense of the word. And for the other things that he might have done that actually WERE illegal…well, my guess is that those things will be so hidden, buried or destroyed no one would ever find them unless some of the guilty come forth to confess.
This isn’t to say that an investigation may not be warranted. Hell, I’d LOVE to see one launched by Obama et al…just to resolve this question once and for all. But I’m not going to hold my breath here.
-XT
But, again, it’s the difference between lying about an affair and torturing, wiretapping without a warrant, rendition, using politics in the DOJ, lying under oath, coverups, and the baloney legal rationales they used to justify it. Those are so much more important than just lying about an affair.
Illegal means, oddly enough, breaking the law. If there is a law against wiretapping without a warrant, and you wiretap without a warrant, you’re breaking the law. If there is a law against torture, and you torture someone, you’re breaking the law. It doesn’t matter one bit whether or not members of Congress were too spineless to object. The law was broken.
Again, why do you think that? The actual evidence is that they wiretapped without warrants. The actual evidence is that they engaged in torture. This isn’t a witch hunt looking for something they did wrong, it’s following a great deal of evidence we already have. It’s not like they’re making things up out of thin air to try and pin on members of the administration.
Justifying the war in Iraq with known to be unreliable intelligence, lying to the American people, and other misdeeds are not “illegal”. That does not mean that other things the administration has done is likewise, not illegal.
I’m sure there is stuff they’ve done that hasn’t come to light, but the thing is, there is a fair amount that has already come out that IS illegal. Again, it’s not like it’s all made up.
I’m not holding my breath for our government to do what is right either. But I will stand up and say they should be doing what is right.
-XT
[/QUOTE]