oh I don’t know lhp, you say it pretty good your own self. but Professor was havin none of it last night was he ? all bidness he was

Go, lhp!

(I’d add, that if you’re not willing to treat ‘terrorists’ as criminals, then you’re not doing your job, either. I don’t see anything in the Constitution that says that Miranda and general criminal law applies to everyone but the prisoners in Guantanamo and Bagram and the secret prisons.)

Thank you for this, LHP.
I thought Turley was brilliant last night. No forkin’ wiggle room anywhere. Wish he’d get some air-time outside of the Olbermann-Maddow “axis of shrill”. (I don’t think they’re shrill, I’m projecting on the M$M).
And, iirc, his commentary didn’t start out this strong and clear…he did start by giving the new POTUS some benefit of the doubt and some time to manouver.

FunnyDiva

The time has come, the walrus said….

TIme for a special prosecutor.

Thanks loosehead.

Drive by Thanks LHP for staying on this topic! Focus and Follow up shows that the Left has a plan and the Will.
Notice Bush never changed his mind about anything which is what he called will but never followed up on the details, cost and progress or lack their of.
The Will to Focus and Follow up on a Plan the execution is just as important as the idea behind the Plan.
Like the Mongols individual military commandeers bloggers try their best to achieve the overall goals of the plan their own way.

I’m listening to Maddow and Turley now. Obama should say, “I took an oath to God to enforce the law…not for me to decide…” I hadn’t thought about it until I heard Turley say it, but this would be one of the shortest investigations ever. It’s that clear. But we need to remember that long before Barack Obama hit the Oval Office, Democratic leadership had refused to attempt to prosecute. Old problem with a few new characters in the cast. Okay. One of them is the President of the United States. How exactly can/should we the people lean on him, and will it matter?

I have to wonder, but I don’t have an opinion yet, on whether Obama might be “saving” these investigations and/or prosecutions for a time when he needs a political flap to out run some other political flap? For instance, might giving the green light to a war crimes investigation pull everyone’s(the medias’) attention away from using reconciliation to get healthcare or cap and trade passed?

Ultimately, the decision of whether there were war crimes is not up to a special prosecutor, but to a petit jury. As for me, I am rarely called for jury duty, but it is time to boycott the criminal justice system. Some poor schmuck gets nabbed for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family – not guilty. Another poor schmuck gets nabbed for bank robbery – not guilty. Another miscreant gets nabbed for general felony stupid – not guilty. Unless and until the prosecutors are willing to actually apply the laws to everyone, then there is no rule of law and everyone caught in the system – currently being used to punish only those without political influence – should be given a pass until the laws are fairly applied to all.

Obama is going to have to be made to initiate prosecutions. He did say make me do it during the campaign.

Yep. There is no excuse, and still – when or if his DOJ launches this investigation, teh Goopers are gonna pop big time.
From what I can tell, there is no Department of Justice.

Thanks for the post, LHP! Question: what are the mechanisms for appointing a special prosecutor? I take it the POTUS can do that, is there another way? Ie, who should we push on to do it?

Have to go now, but I’ll check back later.

A vital function for a Truth Commission would be the political power it provides to whistleblowers. The legal protections are mixed, and depend almost entirely on the still-moribund DoJ either to enforce them against retributive agency heads or to actively protect whistleblowers and to investigate alleged wrongdoing.

Neither party seems to want Obama’s DoJ to take those roles seriously; they seemed happy with Bush’s gelding of them, which indirectly dampens any notion of Congress looking into its own criminal and ethical lapses. Because once you start looking for dirt and find it, then you have to clean it up or be deemed to have affirmed it.

This is one hot potato we should force Obama to take out of the warming oven and fry up.

I dunno, newton. It seems like the DOJ has it’s hands full trying to clear up all the partisan garbage law that the Bush DOJ was practicing. Could it be that we’re just so used to the almost daily headline outrages from the Bush DOJ that, in comparison, the Obama DOJ simply APPEARS not to be doing much?

And in truth, because of all the burrowing, it won’t really be cleaned up.

Turley was TOTALLY on it last night. He was within a hairs width of DEMANDING accountability on National tveeee, and he meant “NOW!”
It was a thing of beauty to behold and hear.
Was Obama listening?
I cannot imagine what the hold up is on this issue. I had thought maybe he was going to use the torture thing to help him in some way with the thugs, but they’re all still running all over him and Cheney won’t go away, so what exactly is the strategery here?
The “c” word is coming up more and more ofted! That would be “c” for COMPLICIT.

… President Obama needs to get out of the way and allow an investigation into war crimes go forward.

I see this as just so much political triangulation. Instead of fulfilling his oath, he’s gauging the political winds. Instead of doing what’s right, he’s looking for political comfort.

Turley was brilliant. We’re not going to make real change in this country until some good old fashioned political courage is practiced. Courage, that is, built on principle first and foremost, the political costs be damned.

In May of 2006, Cheney appeared on Larry King. He stepped in it big time, but few people caught it. I alerted Rude Pundit and he wrote about it.

an excerpt:

Then Cheney made this statement: “In a sense, when you’re at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.” So, like, if, in a sense, the Gitmo campers are “prisoners of war,” then, in a sense, don’t they get Geneva Conventions protections?

Cheney and Gonzales have been playing a semantics game to justify torture, since “war” was never formally declared. It’s pretty obvious why they chose to embark upon the path of war without ever formally declaring it – so they could not be held accountable for the War Crimes they knew they’d be committing.

Bush tells us every day that we’re at war. Cheney and Gonzales tell us that we’re not REALLY at war.

Problem is, Cheney is on tape stating not only that we are at war, but that we are holding “prisoners of war.”

The Geneva Conventions DO APPLY, and Cheney is guilty of war Crimes.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA…..kl.01.html

KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.

D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo’s been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who’s down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you’re at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with.”

So this is the war without end, and these prisoners will be held forever?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/…..0227fafact

New Yorker

From the article:

Yoo believed that the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief gave him virtually unlimited authority to decide whether America should respond militarily to a terror attack, and, if so, what kind of force to use. “Those decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make,” he wrote in a law article.

A top Administration official told me that Yoo, Addington, and a few other lawyers had essentially “hijacked policy” after September 11th. “They thought, Now we can put our views into practice. We have the ability to write them into binding law. It was just shocking. These memos were presented as faits accomplis.”

In Yoo’s opinion, he wrote that at Guantánamo cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees could be authorized, with few restrictions.

“The memo espoused an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the President’s Commander-in-Chief authority.”

So this same approach was used across the board. Addington effectively sought to obtain “legal opinions” which were in fact illegal, with the specific intent to provide Bush and Cheney with sufficient legal cover to behave as Dictators and Kings, as there were virtually no laws that applied to them, as determined by edict.

This is where we stand today. There is not one single law that applies to Bush or Cheney. They have found lawyers who were willing to craft opinions stating that they were above the law, and in so doing, have subverted the Constitution of the United States.

This activity was intentional, willful and treasonous.

They were sworn to uphold the constitution.

Given this information, others in a position to do something about it (who also swore under oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC) now have an obligation to fulfill.

Time to choose sides, Mr. President.

Obama and his minions have been very clear and unwavering from the getgo. They have no intentions of prosecuting these “policy differences.” And all the Johnathan Turleys of the world ain’t gonna make him. This may be the only campaign promise he keeps.

Turley’s got no power … Mika decides what we think ! /s

Siri !

Your second link is in error. I could not repair it.

You have Professor Turley urging Obama to proceed with the prosecution of Cheney.

You have Professor Krugman urging Obama pursue a systemic change of our nation’s financial system.

Now, both Professors could be correct and wisdom might dictate that Obama follow their advice, but as we discuss these matters I think it is important to remember that it is much easier for Professors to urge these difficult actions than for a President to do them.

It is easy to be brilliant and brave sitting in an Ivory Tower.

LHP sez “For some sad reason, the President feels that he needs political cover to appoint the obviously badly needed Special Prosecutor to do the Grand Jury presentment and prosecute the likely indictments.”

Either you didn’t write to Senator Obama about the FISA Amendment, or didn’t read his lengthy response letter, or have forgotten what he said in it in the light of all the sh** that’s come down since. It spelled out his reluctance to pursue anything to do with Cheney/Bush crimes against humanity/the Constitution with perfect clarity.

First he talked about how important it is that we “win” the bogus “War on Terror,” then he explained that in responding to the excesses of Cheney/Bush, we must be very careful not to tie the hands of any future president in prosecuting said “War.” Gee, I wonder who he had in mind when he wrote that.

O/T … Is this why they didn’t want Lisa Jackson to head EPA ? - from HuffPo

Thanks for that heads-up. It is reprinted from the New Yorker at Common Dreams here.

Well, there you go. The problem here is that so many of us Americans think that the entire point of prosecution is precisely to tie the hands of future Presidents/Tyrants.

goes to show how much faith cheney has in obama to act as a firewall for war crimes prosecution. i mean, he’s treating the current cic with absolute disdain, and practically daring him to do something.

of course obama was going to respond–he’s a vain man, so he found time to come on tv and deflect, and yet he is looking more and more feeble/compromised by actively blocking prosecutions. obama wants to play this off and look forward, and cheney won’t let him.

Wow. Wow.
Thanks petro

I am beginning to wonder whether Obama is listening to anything about anything…except for what his boy Rahm is telling him, of course.

We’re staring into the abyss of an economic catastrophe, even as experts from every quarter are saying, “Nooooooo!!!!”… And he couldn’t be more oblivious.
He’s doubling down in Afghanistan, even though history shows us how that is likely to end up.
He’s turning a blind eye to torture, even in the face of clear and convincing evidence that torture has, in fact, occurred.

Change, my ass…

So what do we do now?

And she keeps Joe Doucheborough’s shirts nicely pressed, too.

WD-40. That’s the key. I recommend about 3/4 of a can.

If Obama at some point feels free to go forward with a special prosecutor, what does Cheney have to gain by poking this particular hive? He is on the record more and more in support, in fact within the decision-making tree, of these crimes.

I do not get it. And when there is a functioning DOJ, what then?

I don’t buy that. He’s The President. He can say, “Do it, or I’ll fire your ass.” And they’ll either do it or walk away…presumably, to a cushy gig running their mouths on the cable TeeVee Box.

I serve to live ! *g*

I have often written that Obama represents the Clinton era Establishment. This Establishment never disagreed with Bush and Cheney on the fundamentals. They only thought that Bush and Cheney went too far in some cases and executed badly in others. This is why they found it so easy to be complicit with so much of what was done in the last 8 years. This is also why torture, rendition, domestic spying and so many other things are only policy differences for them.

They’re trying to bully Obama into inertia … but he looked really pissed on 60 Minutes.

well, you’ve got half of that right. it is harder for obama to actively block prosecutions than it is for law professors to suggest that obama follow the law. so what does that tell us about his principles? gee, are we supposed to “make him do it?” he didn’t sign up to do these difficult things?

Turley is right: it would be/is horrible to condition prosecutions on these crimes on the “popularity” of doing so.

I wonder, though, whether the advice the Pres. is evidently getting to do so is not only abhorrent, but simply wrong as an assessment of the balance of public opinion, especially considering how opinion is likely to change as more information comes out beyond the toobz.

But then, maybe it’s certain segments of the public that are of concern? [I’m considering the source as well as the subject.]

emptywheel is so on the case today, and is at the top of the front page!
Joe Baca: When Was It Broken?

it’s because cheney is absolutely secure in his knowledge that obama will protect him that he keeps poking the hive. cheney has a massive ego and is a sadist. obama is doing his best to keep things under wraps and look forward, but cheney doesn’t mind picking this kind of fight, to piss off obama and to weaken him.

after all, do you really think they’re going to go after cheney without going after w? obama is all in on this, and cheney keeps splashing the pot.

Agree. Turns out when W said “Clinton did it,” he was right. I could never see Obama giving up any of the power that W accumulated, that congress was so eager to relinquish.

Over the weekend, I heard an economist refer to this administration as “Clinton Five”, because of the players and policies.

Oh, but Obama had to use Clinton retreads “to get off the ground quickly.” /s

Oh yeah. I almost forgot.

Turley was so wonderful.

He must feel 1,000 times the frustration the rest of us feel that this administration, the one we assumed would be such a change and so open to good ideas, has holed itself up within its own “bubble,” listening to its own version of Wise Men on important issues like the economy and justice.

I don’t think any of us — even Jonathan Turley and Paul Krugman — thought we’d have the opportunity to “have Obama’s ear,” but at least I assumed he’d listen & consider, not post Rahm at the door to keep out all unwelcome voices.

No, I don’t expect him to have “fixed” what it took Bush 8 years to f*** up [and on some issues, with additional help during the Clinton years], but I am SO disappointed at his choice to continue to listen to the unimaginative cretins who created the problems.

Color me bummed.

Seconded.

Don’t blame it on Rahm. Obama chose him to make sure no one gets in. And from the scant details that come out of meetings, the fact that Obama “listens” doesn’t seem to influence his decisions. For Obama, listening seems to be a tactic oriented toward mollifying his opposition. “Everyone had input into the decision.” Input but no influence.

Great post. Turley was so very good, clear, concise, to the point. And yet, how many torture questions – real nuts and bolts questions and not broad invitations to pontification on how the US doesn’t torture – will we see during the Presidential press conf?

For those who are interested, btw, here is the pdf of the British High Court “Annex” that was just released a couple of days ago in the Binyam Mohamed case

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/s…..ate.91.pdf

“For Obama, listening seems to be a tactic oriented toward mollifying his opposition. “Everyone had input into the decision.” Input but no influence.”

Very astute observation.

Obama should name a special prosecutor. He should pick someone who combines two qualities: the person is an aggressive prosecutor who takes the law seriously, and the person is not a Democrat.

He should then ask Congress to extend the relevant statutes of limitations, so that people can’t get off because a five-year statute of limitations has expired.

Thanks.

Here’s the deal…Turley is a REAL smart guy….but as most lawyer types, he seems (unless I’m missing something blatant) to fall into the same mold as most of his colleagues: All hat – no pants.

Translated, means he talks a great game but seems to be unwilling to DO anything about it. I sure with his contacts and background he could present a formidable movement to assist Eric Holder to make this happen. All I’ve seen is steam…Cheeeney needs to go to the Hague..Turley could be instrumental in making that happen if he’s get off his butt !!

This assessment of Turley is, quite simply, untrue and unrealistic.
Besides NOT being employed by the administration, and besides the administration’s need to NOT HEAR his plea – Turley is defense counsel for at least one Guantanamo detainee. And a Professor. And is all over the airwaves about these issues whenever and wherever he can.

Seconded ! Turley was one of the first to call BushCo on committing War Crimes.

Academics do not enact policy or legislation, Turley has been doing a great job shining light on these issues and must be congratulated for doing so.

I understand the ‘Ivory Tower’ argument, but in Professor Turley’s case, it clearly does not apply, IMHO.
Dude has been THE MAN on this.

Few things surprise me … today I was surprised to learn that Chuck Schumer did not support
Gay Marriage … until now

Absolutely, Turley has done his best to highlight Bush War Crimes. Any statement to the contrary is pure nonsense.

well, to be fair, obama fancies himself a constitutional scholar and academic, especially in his critiques of bush administrations policies on the gwot. and then came the alibi of pragmatism.

and if he’d used the same goofy arguments for extending w’s policies in those u of c law classes, he would have been laughed out of the hall. guaranteed

I was shocked. And am not looking this gift horse in, you know, the anywhere.
I wonder if Shumer has calculated the electoral consequences…

*forget the damned tag* – SNARK!

I could’t believe that a close friend of Hillary and long serving Dem Senator was anti- gay marriage.

Shumer is for Shumer first, last, always.
His disgraceful shilling for RGJoe before the ‘06 primary was as transparent a fraud as you are likely to see. His MTP appearance is infamous.

FDL is not the place I go to read happy, optimistic fluff pieces about the glorious changes wrought by the dream team in the White House. In fact, there is no place like that. Pretty much everyone I read and listen to feels betrayed on these issues, which were crucial, critical issues with a lot of us.

I have often considered myself jaded and cynical. This failure of our representative democracy is so palpable it feels like a slow death inside. It’s the worst abrogation of a mandate I could ever have dreamed up.

I saw that during the Mukasey confirmation … pathetic disregard for the Oath of Office.

I’m going to watch Obama’s presser … I’ll see you on Late Nite.

see you there

Hey, it’s not a dry printer ribbon! An eighth of a can ought to be plenty!

It’s never going to happen. No one in power wants it, and too many toes in the water.

Turly seems to be the only one who gets it! There are those who are ‘waiting in the wings’ to emulate the Bush Cartel, and they will completely devour us if we permit Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice et al to get away with their crimes. Very obvious to me that Rush is emulating and standing in for Cheney, which explains the apologies.

Yeah like who wants to a victim of Chaney’s Murder Squad? Indict and die?

There is so much in the news about Chaney’s Murder Squad that the weather report can barely get a word in edgewise.

Congress can do it. The president can do it. The Ag can do it.

Depending on the mechanism, the pool from which you would choose the person would be different, and some of the powers (more like procedures affecting how you use the powers) could be different.

Turley does too walk the walk,

He is currently representing two Gitmo detainees. One of those cases has or soon will go on trial. Normally, whne you are on trial, you are working an 18-20 hour day, yet he finds the time to prep for and do almost daily commentary on MSNBC.

He earns those dark circles under his eyes. He’s off his butt “doing something” thankyouverymuch

The time has come, the walrus said

To talk of many things -
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax,
Of cabbage(heads) and Kings…

so true, egregious, way past time.