Obama flip-flops on potential torture prosecutions
posted at 1:33 pm on April 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Jim Geraghty’s axiom continues to apply as another Barack Obama Position Expiration Date arrives. After a series of rebuffs towards those who want war-crimes trials against Bush administration officials for allegedly approving torture, Obama reversed himself today and suggested that such trials might take place. Jake Tapper gives the details:
President Obama suggested today that it remained a possibility that the Justice Department might bring charges against officials of the Bush administration who devised harsh interrogation policies that some see as torture. …
The Bush-era memos providing legal justifications for enhanced interrogation methods “reflected us losing our moral bearings.” The president said that he did not think it was “appropriate” to prosecute those CIA officers who “carried out some of these operations within the four corners of the legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the White House.”
But in clear change from language he and members of his administration have used in the past, the president said that “with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.”
Just yesterday, asked by a reporter as to why the administration was not seeking to “hold accountable” Bush administration lawyers who may have “twisted the law,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said, “the president is focused on looking forward, that’s why.”
And now he’s focused on the past? If so, it may be because Obama decided that he couldn’t take any more heat from the far Left. They’ve been wanting blood for years and expected to get it with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlling Capitol Hill. Obama did a pretty good job of putting them off for three months, but apparently that’s the limit of his endurance.
In some ways, though, Obama put himself in an untenable position. The self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar had argued all along that the US broke laws during interrogations, and made that point again when it released the Bush-era OLC memos. In a nation of laws, how does one make that claim as President and not allow the supposed crimes to be probed? Listening to the rhetoric, this flip-flop was entirely predictable.
Obama can open the door to prosecutions, but who will he prosecute? He’ll find it difficult to go after the interrogators, who relied on some strange opinions from the normally-binding Office of Legal Counsel. The prosecution can try undermining that by claiming it as a Nuremberg defense, but this wasn’t Nazi Germany and the OLC exists to give this kind of legal direction. Interrogators relied on those interpretations in good faith.
That leaves George Tenet and the OLC attorneys, but they didn’t conduct the torture, and the OLC didn’t order the interrogations, either. They responded to a request from the CIA to opine on the legality of the procedures. Holder can prosecute Tenet, but then he’d also have to file charges against several members of Congress who were briefed on the procedures and never objected — including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If Tenet would get prosecuted for ordering the interrogation techniques, then Pelosi and others would have to get prosecuted for being accessories in not taking action to stop them.
Obama had it right in the first place. He made the decision to ban those procedures, and he should just keep looking forward. If those interpretations were flawed, and I’d agree that at least some of them were, they’ve been withdrawn.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
We need to prosectute and impeach Obama for being a lameass president and for compromising American’s safety. Dick Cheney is right again. I am so glad he is calling out the lameass president for being so pathetically stupid. Obama is just nervous waiting for his centerfold picture to come out.
Frances on April 21, 2009 at 2:07 PM
True, if they broke the law.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
Don’t do it.
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Wow. This is some sort of evidence that Obama’s real mission is to destroy the US. Of course, if a Republican gets elected in ‘12, the first thing they’ll likely do is prosecute him and his people, if nothing else, to raise the potential costs of working for Dems to the level of Republicans. What a chilling effect on our politics this is going to have.
And if we get attacked again, even his media won’t be able to save him.
blue13326 on April 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
We don’t.
If you want a pest to disappear, don’t feed it. That’s why it’s here, to feed.
Loxodonta on April 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Treason doth never prosper.
Why?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.
- John Harrington
MB4 on April 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
I don’t understand the contradiction here. Obama previously stated that CIA agents who followed the legal advice would not be prosecuted. He’s now saying that this does not apply to Justice Department officials who formulated the legal opinions that authorized the interrogation methods.
What statement did Obama make that expired?
tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
And people think the country is divided now – witch trials will create division we can’t even imagine. Obama would have to scratch that platitude about being a uniter off his list.
katiejane on April 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM
If they did it “hundreds of times”, as one Leftist blogger and the NY Times claim, then it’s not torture.
Now tell us again why Cheney is so bad for doing for a few years with Halliburton what Democrat President Lyndon Johnson did with them for over 60 years.
Del Dolemonte on April 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM
The very idea that offering a legal opinion can be illegal is worse than scary as hell, and any attempt to prosecute would set a horrible, damaging precedent.
The threats first from Spain, now from your own president surely will have a chilling effect on any future efforts to deal with what are perceived to be imminent terror attacks. The jihadis must be laughing their heads off.
ProfessorMiao on April 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM
So The Precednet governs as the polls go.
Some “change”…why isn’t the left angry about that?
ladyingray on April 21, 2009 at 2:10 PM
the nazis only wish they’d had witty legal experts like bradbury and bybee and yoo write BS memos for them legitimizing their torture techniques (now taught by SERE, connect the dots). that would have saved them from execution.
sesquipedalian on April 21, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Is someone gonna prosecute Meghan McCain for Twitterboarding us?
LibTired on April 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Why are we not talking about the INFO in this ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html
jp on April 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
That speaks volumes.
Wow.
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
This is just red meat to the left (Ok, for the left, it’s probably tofu, to avoid offending the vegans).
Obama and Holder know they have no chance of convictions. They may go along for a while just to destroy lives of former GOP officials simply because they can (and as Powerline noted, to intimidate people from serving in a GOP administration).
I give Holder enough credit for knowing that the witness lists for the defense in any criminal trial would have, at the very top, the names of every Dem politician who ok’d these methods.
Wethal on April 21, 2009 at 2:14 PM
The bigger the stink the right makes about the torture issue the easier it will be for the Dem majority congress to push for investigations. I swear, it’s like flypaper for some of you guys. Going down this path will hurt your position with moderates and maybe even some religious groups. I’m pretty sure we won’t hear many church sermons about what Jesus would think about the use of torture. So as any student of US politics will agree, one of the most effective ways to defeat an opponent is to co-opt his issue. That is, make it your own. So let’s consider the options & costs.
Any opinions?
SocratesShadow on April 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
What crime under the US criminal code did these lawyers commit simply by giving their interpretations of the law?
Wethal on April 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Don’t count on it. There are lots of conservatives today walking thru doors that were opened by liberals. E.g., Gore’s dogged persistence in 2000 paved the way for Norm Coleman today; Carter, Gore and Obama have taken every available potshot at the Bush Administration, so Cheney feels no need to hold back today. Liberals change the standards and conservatives adapt.
If Obama prosecutes Justice Department employees from the Bush era, he will effectively hamstring his own justice department. What lawyer would ever want a job where he or she could be prosecuted for rendering an opinion?
Dee2008 on April 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Spiritk9 on April 21, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I just use the same login for HA and the Green Room. Does that not work for you?
cs89 on April 21, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Let the classified info/knowledge fly now Cheney!
Obama is playing with fire
jp on April 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Haha. Gibby is getting grilled on this right now.
Tapper, “So what’s changed? Has the president caved in to left wing pressure?”
Gibbs, “bdip, bdip, bdip…..”
Dee2008 on April 21, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Geez, Bobby Gibbs is being hammered by the press on this issue right now. They’re even asking if Obama caved in to Moveon.
Knucklehead on April 21, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Wow, indeed. Survival Evasion Resistance Escape.
Now try to click two neurons together long enough to figure out why being waterboarded is part of SERE training.
ProfessorMiao on April 21, 2009 at 2:20 PM
This is a dumb political move. Obama just unleashed the activist left on the AG and the DOJ. They’ll be dreaming of another Fitzmas, only to be let down again. I cannot imagine that the DOJ indicts anyone. There is no upside to prosecutions other than placating the far left base. There would be a chilling effect for Obama’s advisors fearing future payback prosecution. The right will go ballistic, and no one knows what would get released in the course of the trials. Can you imagine if large portions of the trials of conservative academics are closed to the public because of the “sensitive nature” of the evidence?
The left already had options for airing the laundry via Congressional hearings, but Obama just offered up prosecutions to his rabid base. They will not settle for less now.
rw on April 21, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Like ABC you do not know the difference between military and civilian. It is clearly stated that the persons prosecuted were military and they violated either the 101 Articles of War (Spanish-American War) or the UCMJ (Viet Nam War). Stating the “United States” took a stand is a stretch. For all we know the soldier in Viet Nam was charged with article 134, which does not amount to much of a stand against torture only. The ABC story does not give details (conveniently) only the musings of an academic whose knowledge of military conduct is questionable at best. Because an act is in violation of the UCMJ does not make it torture. Clearly you do not know the difference.
Anyone with any remote knowledge would know that the CIA is not covered by the UCMJ.
jdkchem on April 21, 2009 at 2:20 PM
medieval waterboarding, used by the NAZI’s and others, is not the same as the modern version.
jp on April 21, 2009 at 2:21 PM
So Obama wants to go after the people who slapped terrorists around to get information about potential attacks on this country, but also wants doctors to have the right to let their botched abortions die of exposure/hunger/suffocation in closets.
Is there a recognizable value system there anywhere? Man, I can’t stand libs.
LibTired on April 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM
again, why are we not talking about Marc Theisens article in WaPo?
the dems look idiotic thanks to it
jp on April 21, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Remember. Nobody voted for a Rush to failure!
jdkchem on April 21, 2009 at 2:23 PM
SocratesShadow on April 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Yes, I have one.
How about we uphold the rule of law and enforce all criminal acts.
How about nobody is above the law including government.
I use this argument too for the left on illegal immigration.
Cherry picking which laws to enforce is not justice. It mocks the legal system.
It boils down to enforce the law or change it and grant amnesty .
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Obama also increased Renditions, which means more actual Real Torture will be happening thanks to Obama, just in foreign countries instead.
jp on April 21, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Which you were all in support of; until Obama changed his mind. LOL
What a tard.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Ed, you’re trying to analyze who Holder and the DoJ could prosecute through logic, when that’s not what the left wants. The people pushing Obama to open up torture proecutions don’t give a damn if George Tenet, some low-level CIA official or staffers in the Office of Legal Counsel are prosecuted. And they won’t be happy if only George Tenet, some low-level CIA official or staffers in the Office of Legal Counsel are the ones prosecuted.
They want Bush, Cheney, Rove and (for the more passionate) Rumsfeld indicted and tried. Nothing less will do, and no bone Obama throws them that contains lesser names than those four will satisfy the left.
If there’s anything we’ve learned about Barack Obama in his first 100 days, it’s he’s afraid to challenge his base, whether its special interest groups on the left, or leaders in Congress. But if the Bush Administration goes through back channels and lets Democratic leaders like Pelosi know that if there are any indictments, their names are going to be dragged into the trial, then Obama is going to face a dilemma of keeping his far left supporters happy, or angering the Congressional poobahs, whose careers could also be threatened if what they knew about the CIA interrogations comes out.
jon1979 on April 21, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Keep your eye on the sparrow. Beretta.
portlandon on April 21, 2009 at 2:26 PM
At least the banks can give the money back after witnessing the horrendous inconsistencies in Administration policies. The guys in the intelligence community, busting their butt to keep us safe, have no such out.
hawksruleva on April 21, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Which criminal law did the lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos violate? What part of the US criminal code did they violate by giving legal opinions?
Wethal on April 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Tapper, you magnificent Bastard. He’s hammering poor old Bobby and so is the rest of the press.
That honeymoon is definitly over.
Knucklehead on April 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
While we’re at it, let’s prosecute Kathleen Sebelius for not paying taxes, Timothy Geithner for not paying all of his taxes, and Eric Holder for his involvement in the Rich pardon. Then, we can have a re-trial of Hillary Clinton for Whitewater just for funsies! Then, we can prosecute Hilda Solis for her husband not paying all of his taxes; she is guilty by association after all. After that, we can prosecute Ron Kirk for not paying his taxes, although I do like the guy. Hey, taxes aren’t pouring water down a person’s nose, but hey, if you do the crime, you gotta do the time!
NathanG on April 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
I seem to remember him being asked about this at his first press conference in the WH as well, AND in at least one of his Pres-elect press conferences.
It’d be cool to have the actual dates+quotes listed…perhaps with a graphic wafflemeter?
Oh wait! I think I remember him saying something about this at the signing remarks after he re-”banned” torture except in some extreme circumstances.
Lesson learned:
Next time intel suggests hundreds of thousands at risk from chem or bio attack in NYC…just let it ride. Don’t torture anyone. If people do get killed, it’s better they die than have their lives saved by torturing the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed with loud music and a cold room in the Caribbean. Next time, let the New Yorkers die.
Right?
scottm on April 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
They hate people. Misanthropy is a value system. Terrorism and infanticide reduce human population, therefore they are a net plus, to a misanthrope.
zmdavid on April 21, 2009 at 2:27 PM
SocratesShadow on April 21, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Sure, frame it as Obama wants to prosecute people who put into place a system that prevented at least one major mass-casualty attack in the US (in particular, per a story up now on Drudge, a 9/11-style attack in LA). This is obviously why Cheney is out now pushing the get the rest of the memos released.
Most Americans, I’d think, would view their fellow Americans who worked hard to prevent another 9/11 more favorably than leftist activists.
The question then becomes does the GOP have enough media pull to frame the story in this manner.
blue13326 on April 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I have a position.
No crime committed.
Skywise on April 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM
If this happens, I cease paying income taxes.
Onager on April 21, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Good question for the AG to decide.
Don’t ya think?
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I’m with Skywise.
BuckeyeSam on April 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM
OK, let’s think outside the box for a moment ….
The Administration stages its release of some of the legal memoranda, but not all of it, setting up the conniption fit by the left (which it’s fine with).
Cheney shows up & does something they didn’t expect – he tells the American people valuable information was obtained by the enhanced interrogations and challenges the Administration to release all the information.
The Administration doesn’t want to do that & it’d like Cheney, et al. to shut up. Rather than say “we’re not going to do that,” thereby admitting they don’t want the whole record out there, they trot out the implicit threat … “if this keeps up, we must might decide to prosecute some of you people.”
Which will probably be enough to get most people to shut up about it.
Because they don’t want to get to the next point on the map: Obama’s DOJ charges someone, their target demands access to / release of all the memoranda as necessary for their defense & it gets hashed out in Court.
A fight which I believe the Administration would ultimately lose, at which time DOJ would have to choose between releasing information which undercuts their narrative for the sake of a political prosecution or dismissing the charges (which they’d spin as “so & so getting off on a technicality”).
BD57 on April 21, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Does anyone else think this woman is a Collette Reardon (SNL) type?
NathanG on April 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Umm, is it because it’s an excellent example of how torture works, and doesn’t cause physical harm? So introducing people to wateboarding can give them an idea of what to expect, and they’ve still got all their fingers and toes intact.
It’s probably also used because there are countries in the world that are perfectly happy to use that particular technique.
hawksruleva on April 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
You raise a very good question. There is evidence that the enhanced interrogation techniques did work.
I also question whether defense attorneys, for any prosecuted US officials, will request and be granted access to a host of secret intelligence files that would be disclosed in trials. And additional disclosures could greatly weaken our ability to defend against many enemies, not just Al-Qaeda.
What does President Obama want most? To demonize and punish the Bush administration? To ensure that such interrogation techniques not be used in the future? Or, to protect the United States from another attack?
If Obama puts protecting the United States first, he can easily accomplish the other goals through his speeches and through laws designed to prevent use of such interrogation techniques in the future.
If Obama is so focused on revenge and his own political advantage that he is willing to make our nation “prisoners of past disagreements,” then he will prosecute.
Loxodonta on April 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Better prepare the initial list of Obama administration offenders. Publishing the advanced copy of the list before the DOJ has an opportunity to have the show trials could motivate a reconsideration of this third-world policy.
littleguy on April 21, 2009 at 2:31 PM
And the gop position is to play the fear card.
So predictable.
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:32 PM
You can’t violate anything by writing an opinion. Tard.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Once again Obama puts a moistened finger in the wind to determine his statement of the day.
When the show trials begin, I want to see all the Dem Senators and Reps who were briefed and agreed to the interrogation procedures in the dock as well. The hypocrisy of the Dems on this particular issue is staggering.
cruadin on April 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
They could be prosecuted under statutes regarding criminal malpractice, for example.
tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Ditto.
getalife suggest that the AG should determine whether a crime has been committed. But isn’t the AG’s job to prosecute crimes AFTER they’ve been reported? In other words, if the AG thinks getalife has committed a crime, should he be free to investigate you until he finds one? Said yet another way, isn’t the Attorney General an Attorney, and not a police officer?
hawksruleva on April 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
As opposed to the let’s-bend-over-and-grab-our-ankles card.
BuckeyeSam on April 21, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Gibbs is absolutely burying himself today trying to explain why the president flipped on this issue, while still maintaining the fiction that there is some logic buried in there somewhere. The press has him nailed–he’s practically gasping for air.
Dee2008 on April 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I’m listening to the White House Presser…
Its fun listening to them try to spin that there was no change in policy… that we all just misunderstood what he said the first time.
Romeo13 on April 21, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Is there a statute in the federal crimes code on “criminal malpractice”?
Malpractice is usually a civil claim filed by the client for bad advice for money damages.
Wethal on April 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
The left won on this issue without one single silly tea party.
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
So anyone who authorized this, could be prosecuted. These tactics were brought forth to congress. Both Democrats, and Republicans.
Who wants to bet me, that not one democrat who knew about this, and gave approval, will see the inside of a court room.
capejasmine on April 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Press is just mad cuz they all wrote editorials praising obama for the previous position. now they have to write one praising the new one, and it’s a mental hurdle they might have problems going thru and maintaining any sense of credibility.
Much like getabrain is having right now.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM
I’ve never heard of a criminal claim; I thought they were all civil.
Regardless, I’d think the attorney judgment rule would provide an easy defense against such a charge.
blue13326 on April 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Volumes of stupidity. Amazing how SERE training which predates both of you morons now magically exists.
jdkchem on April 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Since you are the one advocating prosecution right now, what crime do you think was committed by giving legal advice? You’ve posted several times saying “prosecute”? For what?
Wethal on April 21, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Yeah, isn’t it funny that no one until Modern times figured out that torture does not work?
Our ancestors must have been really dumb… I mean, heck, thousands of years of torture across all Cultures… and no one was smart enough to figure out it apparently does not work????
And yet… apparently… it does doesn’t it?
Romeo13 on April 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM
This will be Obama’s undoing. This is the Obama that gave the middle finger to McCain during a speech in Florida. He’s pissed at Cheney for challenging him to open the so called “torture” files.
Obama is a megalomaniac in my opinion and the majority will soon figure it out.
FireBlogger on April 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM
This press conference is quite unbelievable.
BTW, Romeo, I guess the Precedent reads HotAir and saw how you took apart the idiotic idea that he decides who shall be prosecuted, as ooposed to the AG :)
I must say this press conference was one of the embarrassing displays I’ve ever seen. It seems to me, more and more, that the US will not be able to recover from this bunch of lying scumbags. What they are doing to the institutions of government is just unreal.
progressoverpeace on April 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM
I’m dizzy from listening to all of Bobby’s spin.
“No one is above the law”………that’s all he keeps repeating.
Knucklehead on April 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
If he allows the Justice Department to go after predecessors it will expose his phony post-partisanship image. He will look Nixon-esque, especially when all the information about what they found out thanks to the interrogations comes to light. This would actually be a good thing.
Not to mention the irony of an Attorney General who lobbied for Puerto Rican terrorists to be pardoned going after Americans for “immoral” bahavior.
Worst. 100. Days. Ever.
Daemonocracy on April 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Hilarious coming from the crowd that says the Earth is coming to an end it we don’t buy Al Gore’s carbon credits,the Christians are taking over if we say the pledge of allegiance,Merry Christmas,In God we Trust on money,
and we are in the worst economy since the depression (9% unemployment compared to almost 30% in the 30’s)to push trillion dollar spending bills.
getalife not having a clue….predictable.
Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Again, my first post about this was it was a mistake.
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
I’m with Skywise and BuckeyeSam.
But if they do prosecute, there’ll be an exodus of government lawyers leaving D.C. to escape potential prosecution.
Dee2008 on April 21, 2009 at 2:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2LcKZlas9U&feature=PlayList&p=88065CD07D5BC6F3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=30
NathanG on April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Yes, they would, but as unwilling witnessees. There are Dems who knew aobut these techniques and ok’d them. They’d be on the defense witness list.
Argument: we gave legal advice to both the administration and to Dems on intelligence committees. They all ok’d it. They could have rejected our advice. They accepted it and condoned it. The crime, then….
Nancy Pelosi would be the first one I’d subpoena.
Wethal on April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Press is just mad cuz they all wrote editorials praising obama for the previous position. now they have to write one praising the new one, and it’s a mental hurdle they might have problems going thru and maintaining any sense of credibility.
Much like getabrain is having right now.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:39 PM
ROFL!!!
capejasmine on April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
blue13326; That info about preventing a “major mass-casualty attack in the US” is already out there. Don’t we have the incident about crashing an airliner into the LA tower. Most people I talk with can name several attacks that were uncovered by the CIA/FBI using the tools that were in place from 2001 and on. I still think the majority of Americans have a uneasy feeling about letting our law enforcement agency’s operate under secret memos. What is your thoughts about dealing with my Christian friends who think this whole issue is just wrong on moral grounds?
SocratesShadow on April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Why do you keep lying, retard? I posted that you said – quite clearly – “no more torture prosecutions”
Just admit your a mindless parrot and accept the grim reality.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
The left won what? You cowards don’t wear the uniform and you never take the risk. What exactly did you win? So far all that you have demonstrated is cowardice and ignorance which you are not in short supply of.
jdkchem on April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
You guys take it easy on getalife; it is Taco Night at Mallard Manor Assisted Living, so she is a bit excited.
carbon_footprint on April 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM
FireBlogger on April 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM
McCain said it is “unacceptable”.
He should know and is right about torture.
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM
No. If you have to ask the AG it means they are being prosecuted for political reasons — not crimes. Just remember, leftard, that when obama and his thugs are out on their asses, two can play that game.
Blake on April 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Can you search comments on this site?
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM
You’re definitely a mistake.
jdkchem on April 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
People with a brain can. You? Probably not.
lorien1973 on April 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Can you take responsibility?
jdkchem on April 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
The left won on this issue without one single silly tea party.
getalife on April 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM
They won? Tell me that, when the violence against our troops, and cia operatives out there, recieve much harsher treatment than ever before.
I hardly look at risking lives, as a win, or lose basis, based in political points. Shame on you!
capejasmine on April 21, 2009 at 2:47 PM
I’m not a lawyer, but I know that malpractice can be criminal. Here’s an article on it, but it only seems to cover state laws, so I’m not sure about federal statutes: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200507/ai_n14684210/
Regardless, it seems that such advice *should* be criminal, though there should be very strict rules (including proving that it was intentional) for actually prosecuting to avoid a legal circus. If it weren’t criminal, then it allows for illegal acts by getting a lawyer to erroneously give advice, and then no one can be held at fault. Unless you think that those who followed the erroneous advice should subject to prosecution, but that doesn’t seem right.
tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM
He also wanted to be President, but you weren’t cool with that.
BadgerHawk on April 21, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Er… google.com
tneloms on April 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I want all those who did permanent harm to the US by needlessly releasing these memos to be charged with treason.
progressoverpeace on April 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM
You guys take it easy on getalife; it is Taco Night at Mallard Manor Assisted Living, so she is a bit excited.
carbon_footprint on April 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM
ROFLMAO!!!! Oh I needed that laugh. Thank you!!!
capejasmine on April 21, 2009 at 2:50 PM
The democrats have just opened a pandora’s box that is going to reveal in the end just how much they backed all of these interrogation methods that they now act like they had nothing to do with.
The Nation is tired of the partisan attacks and bickering on the Hill and the democrats are going to create a war of partisanship in the middle of major job losses,economic uncertainty,and raging threats internationally in N.Korea,Afghanistan,Iran,and Pakistan.
Can’t wait to see democrats like Pelosi and Rockefeller explaining to the Nation why they supported waterboarding and other techniques behind closed doors than rebuked them in public.
Can’t wait to see intelligence official after intelligence official come forward and show how effective these techniques were and the lives that they saved.
Can’t wait for CIA leak after CIA leak blowing democrats out of the water for politicizing the difficulties of war for their own political gain.
Baxter Greene on April 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM
READ what Collette Reardon has to say jdk. She’s a genius. Nobody should be angered by this torture b.s. The fur is going to fly and the shite’s going to hit the fan, let me tell ya!
Even though I don’t care much about politics except for the war on terrorism, I will fight this in whatever way I can. To me, if you’re going to prosecute the people who authorized the torture, then you should prosecute the ones who did it, ala a person putting out a hit on somebody.
NathanG on April 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.
Don’t do it.
getapair on April 21, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Del Dolemonte on April 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM
She also can’t read the articles she post from what are usually leftist or left-of-center sources, such as the one where it stated that the banking fiasco started TEN years ago, when, I’ll be damned, Clinton was president!
NathanG on April 21, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »