If we did prosecute the Bush Admin., wouldn't we have to look back at the Clinton Admin too?

This is why I agree with Pres. Obama, we shouldn't look back. It wont stop with Bush and his band of dummies. Some of that stuff was a lil too thought out for them to come up with. I'm watch Shelby grill Holder at some hearing on CSPAN and he was basically trying to get him to say that some of these things went on under Clinton as well. He didn't say it, but he also didn't deny it.

If Clinton authorized torture, he's just as bad as george and dickless.

People who want different rules for their team, and fuck the other team, really piss me off. How about if we expect both teams to obey the law and we enforce that? Wouldn't that be a good idea?
x(

of Johnson and Nixon.

Crime is crime

This isn't about personalities or political parties

Thats what they do, kind of like blackmail.

investigating Bush the first, also. Carter? Reagan? How far are we supposed to be going back?

The reason for this investigation was because of the photos and other evidence of torture that we have obtained. The deaths by torture that we know occurred. The public complaints by the Red Cross and by numerous high level military people. Also, the memos that the Bush administration tried to disavow before they left office. In other words, we have a strong basis for an investigation that we don't have for the previous administrations.

that is, logically we would/could/maybe should investigate ALL. BUT if we were to do that, I suspect it would be SO CLEAR that gwb (cheney, rumsfeld) took the violations to such unconscionable extremes that their disrespect for law would result in international dishonor and whatever penitence we should demand.

is because the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a very specific report whose finding was that BushCo had a torture program. This isn't a plot instigated by the Democrats. The world body's representative who has legal standing found that BushCo tortured.

"Can't nobody here play this game!?!"

lol

:)

Why do people want to take the country down that road. I've always considered myself liberal, but it bothers me to side with republicans on this. We just need to move foward. The steps Obama have taken already show so much guts. I don't think people really grasp the strength this man has to do what he has done. But for some it seems like its not enough, they want more, and I just don't understand it. If we go down that road it wont stop with Bush was my main point.

See post #14.

.

he did not direct anyone to torture.

The last president who was involved with that was Reagan. We can go there, if the Republicans want to dismantle their saint.

I also think its a good idea Obama didn't completely ban that program.

has taken. Yes, Clinton did that. And I'm not happy at all that Obama is keeping this measure.

But that's entirely besides the point. If you want to go back to the last administration that had a global torture program, that would be Raygun, who exported torture to South East Asia, North Africa and Central America.

I think its smart of him to keep it. The man has gone far enough for me. I have so much respect for the strength he showed already in publically banning torture, and releasing those memos.

If you allow governments to break the law in that way, the next thing you know, you have hundreds of innocent people being tortured at Gitmo. When you allow your government to slip on human rights, it always gets worse, it never gets better.

be tortured.

Clinton didn't do that.

"Under President George W. Bush, renditions became “extraordinary renditions,” in which suspects were handed over to nations where torture was not illegal. Rendition under Presidents Clinton and Obama has not been linked to torture."


http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/07/holder-says-he-approved-clinton-era-renditions/

Here's a timeline at PBS. ACLU also says the origin of this program can be traced back to the Clinton administration.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html

Let's be very clear: Clinton did not have these people sent to countries were torture was legal for no reason. And Obama is also keeping that option open for himself.

But Bill Clinton did not have a torture program as George Bush did. Bill Clinton never ordered anyone to be tortured.

HA!

They're going to regret doing this.

The more they regret, the BETTER!

The crime of which the Bush administration stands accused is the creation and execution of a program in which, at the direct order of the Executive authority, U.S. government personnel tortured prisoners in their custody. Direct orders to commit torture came from the highest levels of the Executive branch to subordinates, and those direct orders from the highest level of the Executive were executed by those subordinates. It is not particularly new for U.S. personnel to have tortured prisoners, it would be possible to cite many examples off the top of my head from the last century, but it is new, and peculiar to the Bush administration, that this was done under direct order from the Oval Office, amplified by direct orders from the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General.

"Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

They would view it as war. We got one of theirs, so they would then want to get one of ours. This all started by me seeing Eric Holder getting grilled by Shellby, its clear to see where they are going with this.

By the time they get the votes, anything involving President Clinton's administration would be ancient history, decades in the past. Shelby can do nothing but run his mouth; he cannot indict or even subpoena anyone. Of course, people on the left crying "yes, let's arrest Pelosi and investigate Clinton too!" must give the wretch some hope....

be guilty of ordering torture doesn't give one a free pass.

I don't care who you are or what your party affiliation is.

You break the law, you pay the price.

BUT that being said I say we call them on it. Let's do as blm said in another thread and open the books for the past 50 years. They might have one or two minor things on Clinton but a whole lot of Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II officials would be overcrowding the prisons in a hurry.

And honestly this sort of cleansing might be the best way to move our country back to the democracy and nation of laws we for some reason believe it to be currently.

What they have is the megaphone, what we have is a much better record and the votes.

And let justice roll down like a river.
The best disinfectant is sunlight.

we should define the crime and prosecute. Start at the bottom, get the small frys to flip and work up the chain, as high as you can go. Just like any other criminal enterprise.

You seem to have concerns that are not typical, as evidenced by this and other threads you've made.

It's a given that the dunderheaded Republicans will always try to claim that whatever ill befalls Americans is due to either Clinton or Carter, no matter what the facts are.

Also what other thread did I make that u didn't agree with? The only thing I've spoke about was John Roberts being an idiot, and I can't think of another one at the moment. I apologize if u didn't like the other threads.

It's just distinctive when a member has worries that sound like GOP talking points. The "we'd better not do that, because the GOP will come after us about Clinton" theme is not one often heard by progressive Democrats.

U funny.

He saw the lil hint Shellby dropped at the hearing as well.

Past and present, approved of torture, then yes, they should be held accountable.

I'm tired of seeing this a partisan issue.

Prosecutions are based on the evidence at hand. You don't stop a prosecution just because you have a hunch about some other guy. That's a separate issue.