Question: in the case of torture (and possibly other things), isn’t Congress now “out of the loop” because Bush et al are no longer in office? Does it now land in the lap of the DOJ, should they decide to pursue it?
If so, it makes more sense that…um, Cornyn, I think, but mainly Republicans…are holding up Holder’s appointment with the claim of wanting to know more about his stance on torture…
I see what you did there 
Funny how you pass right over the serious stuff to grab for an equivalence. “But Clinton did it too!” has been the watchword for Republicans since 2001. Never mind that Clinton didn’t torture, didn’t wiretap without warrants, didn’t make rendition a common tool of policy, didn’t hire career DoJ positions based on political party…“But Clinton lied under oath, too!”
The most ironic thing in politics is that the Republicans claim they’re the party of morality…
In post 33, I set out what I believe to be the bare bones of the case, on the issue of torture. I don’t mention the specific instances of torture that I believe qualify as criminal acts, but I can dig those up if you’d like; I assume you’ll stipulate that members of CIA waterboarded prisoners during the past 8 years.
As for Congress’s guilt-by-association, I’m pretty sure that’s not how conspiracy law works. If it is, by all means investigate them. But it looks to me as if Congress’s lack of effective protest falls into the “shitty but not illegal” category, whereas an Administration that drafted memos about torture may well have engaged in actions that qualify as a conspiracy.
Last point: separation of powers is important. The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws. The judicial branch interprets the laws. It’s the last group who decides what “illegal” means in this context.
Daniel
Sure…but the thing is, they didn’t initially go after Clinton over his affair. They were looking for something else and FOUND the affair as one of the few things they could pin him on. They THOUGHT he had done a lot of illegal stuff…but only found this as something they could go after him about.
If it were this cut and dried Bush would have been impeached and criminally prosecuted already. Yeah…illegal means breaking the law. However, I’m unsure of what laws were broken and by whom, and based on the lack of anything real happening on any of these issues I’d have to say that the actual legal experts are unsure as well. My conclusion is that while folks on the SD can easily say ‘See! It’s ILLEGAL!’ the reality is that the situation is more complex than is generally acknowledge here.
I ask again…how is the impeachment of Chaney and Bush going? The Chaney impeachment started well over a year ago and Bush’s was before the election.
Why do I think what? Sure, there is evidence that there was wiretapping. And afaik there was some level of Congressional oversight on it as well, making it at least quasi-legal. Torture? While I find it distasteful myself I am unsure of how illegal it is in this situation. I believe that with Congressional oversight a President could authorize the assassination of someone…an act that would normally be considered ‘illegal’ if you or I did it. I could be wrong of course but I have to ask…if all this stuff is REALLY illegal then why has nothing been done? Dems have controlled Congress since 2006. Surly if this stuff is illegal in a real sense than at that point they would have, at a minimum, stopped tacit support and begun some kind of legal investigations into it. It’s now 2009…where is the beef?
As for the witch hunt…of COURSE it would be a witch hunt if they did it like they did with Clinton. If they HAVE something on Bush already then why haven’t they trotted it out? My (probably uninformed) guess is…they don’t have anything that is real on him. The points generally trotted out on this message board ‘conclusively’ demonstrating that Bush has done illegal things are widely known. And yet absolutely nothing has been done on any of them. Let me repeat that…those points you and others in this thread are OUT IN THE OPEN…everyone knows about them. And yet…nada.
Why? It can’t all be because Bush is just the most powerful and feared man on the face of the earth with millions of faceless minions poised to whack anyone who moves against him. My own Occam’s Razor seems to indicate that while it seeming intuitively obvious that Bush has committed all these crimes (to a layman like me and most other 'dopers), the reality must be something else. There has to be some reason that nothing has been done…and it can’t all be politics.
That’s true and true. You are right. And I actually think they probably HAVE done illegal things in the correct sense of the word. I just don’t think the things commonly trotted out as examples of his illegal action are valid, much as they SEEM to be.
And while I said earlier that it would be a witch hunt I have no real problem with that, or with an investigation. Especially if they can keep it more narrow and focused that that fiasco with Clinton. I would like to see this question put to rest for the majority of the American people once and for all. If he HAS done illegal things then I’d like to see him and those others involved punished to the full extent of the law. If that splashes on Congress then so be it.
I’m just not very sanguine about this happening.
And I don’t think that some of the things that have ‘come to light’ are illegal in the context of how our government works. I freely concede that I could be wrong. Much of my thinking stems from late night drinking binges with some of my legal buddies and the discussions we’ve had. But I don’t even pretend to understand the conventional legal system, let alone how the legal system works at the government level…or, even more complex and nebulous this supposed ‘international law’ thingy. All I can say is that if they things that have ‘come to light’ (none of them very recently…some of they years ago) really ARE illegal and our system has done nothing about it…well then it sort of puts a different spin on what the word legal actually means.
Still…I actually hope that if he/they has done something illegal that something comes out and something is done.
-XT
Most of us would like a thorough investigation before impeachment and criminal prosecution. A criminal investigation, at this point, is what we’re talking about.
Of course it’s more complex. What? You want it all the evidence and a certain conviction before you’ll ask for a real criminal investigation? Kinda putting the cart before the horse there.
You can ask it a dozen more times if you like. It still won’t be any closer to making a point about the debate. You’re acting as if, since there was no impeachment or criminal prosecution yet, there shouldn’t even be an investigation. Surely you see that’s kinda silly.
Well, I guess I’ll call for a quasi-conviction then. Look, just because Congresspersons were spineless and didn’t immediately call for criminal investigation and prosecution in no way means the actions suddenly became legal. All it means is that the Congresspersons didn’t do their job.
I guess I’ll ask for anything to support your position. Because I don’t seem to remember anything about a minority of Congresspeople being able to suddenly make something that is illegal, legal
And, again, just because Congress doesn’t do it’s job restraining the President, doesn’t mean something that was illegal magically becomes legal. You continue to pretend that, because Congress hasn’t done enough to stop the Bush administration, that means no illegalities occurred and that we shouldn’t even start a criminal investigation.
At this point in your post, you simply begin repeating the same things over and over. I think I’ve answered your questions and pointed out the flaws in that position. If I missed anything of substance, let me know. And if you have any support for your assertions, that’d be nice too.
I thought we were discussing the odds of it happening.
And you are putting the straw into the man. I never said that there shouldn’t be an investigation. If those things claimed to be illegal are illegal then why isn’t there already an investigation underway? Or is there one and I missed it (I concede that this is a real possibility)?
There IS an impeachment in the works (well, it’s moot now, but there was one up to Obama taking over). That’s my point. Both Chaney and Bush had impeachment documents read out in Congress (by Denis Kucinich) already. How have they proceeded so far? What has been accomplished?
I don’t think the point is silly at all. I think it cuts the the heart of THIS debate (i.e. ’ What are the odds Congress will go after Bush officials for abuses of power?’). I’m sorry that you don’t seem to see that.
And since you don’t seem to be hearing me I WANT AN INVESTIGATION. I am NOT saying that there shouldn’t be one. I’m saying I don’t EXPECT there to be one. See the difference?
What is illegal then if an act is not investigated and prosecuted? What does the term mean if nothing is done when a crime is obviously committed? I find it fairly difficult to believe that all of this stems simply through the lack of spine in the entire (Democrat) side of Congress. If these acts are so obviously illegal, as folks here claim, then I find it incredible that noting has been done about this…and seemingly nothing WILL be done about it. To me that sets off my ‘something is fishy’ here-0-meter…that perhaps what we THINK is illegal really isn’t. Or that our system is so broken that it is beyond repair if a sitting president could do illegal acts right out in the open and known to everyone and their mother (and touted constantly on the StraightDope) and nothing is done.
What kind of evidence would you be willing to accept? That there are Congressional subcommittees (in concert with the Judiciary) that can authorize things like wiretapping, ‘torture’, even murder? I’m sure I could dig up something but I don’t really think ‘my’ position hinges on any of this anyway. Again, if he has done all these illegal things why has nothing been done? They are all out there in the open after all. We all know about the wiretaps, the torture, the kidnapping of foreign nationals, the CIA outings thingy…all that stuff. We know all about it…we, the People. And yet…nada. Why?
In a practical sense, if the President can openly do illegal acts with absolutely no consequences to either him or his administration then what does ‘illegal’ actually mean? I’m sorry you don’t understand that and sorry you think that my arguments are worthless to the discussion on the realistic odds of Congress going after Bush et al. Carry on…I’m sure it will be a fascinating discussion.
-XT