News & Politics

Rant

Eric Holder Mulls Charging Republicans

Posted 34 months ago|37 comments|623 views
Written by
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
What is a banana republic? According to a cynical yet highly accurate definition it is a place where they name a street after you one week and chase you down it the next. If Eric holder has his way, former President George W. Bush may feel that America is such a place. According to Newsweek, Attorney General Eric Holder is planning to hold hearings to investigate allegations of torture and other naughty things that went on during the Bush administration. Newsweek reports as follows.


"Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

The article paints a disarming portrait of Holder, one of a man who is a gentleman in an argument. The article portrays him as a tough judge who was not shy about handing out jail time yet so gentlemanly that the convicts he sent away thanked him.

The article praises Holder for his independence. It claims that President Obama is reluctant to investigate and possibly indict Bush administration figures. Eric Holder is supposedly a man of law who is now agonising over the weighty decisions he faces concerning whether or not to take legal action against Obama's predecessors. He is shocked and outraged over the treatment of prisoners from America's war on terror. How he feels about some of the tortures under Sadaam Hussein is not recorded. Cutting off hands, gouging out eyes and mailing videotapes of the gang rape of family members would only concern Holder if it were done by Americans. But since these and other horrific acts were done by America's enemies, it does not concern him. He wants America to fight a war against ruthless adversaries using gentlemen's rules.

Supposedly, Obama is opposed to the plans being weighed by his Attorney General. I do not believe this for a second. If such information is being leaked, Obama is playing games if he pretends to be opposed to Holder's plans.

If Holder establishes a precedent of subjecting predecessors in the Oval Officed to prosecution, it will be a powerfully destabilising influence on the stability of our country. Only the gravest and most pressing cause should precipitate such an action. Second guessing interrogators in a war situation shows a stunning lack of good faith. It will create ill will between the Democrats and Republicans that will be divisive and corrosive toward national unity. It will also diminish respect for America in the eyes of ruthless enemies.

Holder has every right to agonise over the actions of the Bush Administration. But he should do so as a private citizen. If Obama is truly opposed to the actions of his "maverick" Attorney General, he should send him packing. There is a saying that "Those who like the law or sausage should not watch either one being made." This is certainly true of warfare.

In any corporation, behavior such as that of Eric Holder would be rewarded with a pink slip. If Obama keeps him on, it is because he approves of what he is doing. If Eric Holder has his way, the country will be divided and vulnerable. We do not need that. And we do not need Eric Holder.

Reprinted with permission from Rudistettner.com
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
34 months ago: Rudi, torturing people is illegal, whether it's done by a psychotic private citizen or by members of the government. Your "banana republic" comments are just so much hyperbole. No, wait, that's not even the right word, because hyperbole would be an exaggeration of something, and there's nothing here to exaggerate.

We are, or at least try to be, a nation of laws. When someone in the government breaks those laws, he or she needs to be held accountable for it, regardless of party membership.

And please, stop saying we have to become evil in order to stop evil. Because that's exactly what you're saying with your comparison to Saddam Hussein. This is America, and if you don't like that we're a nation of laws, you can damn well leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
34 months ago: We are talking about warfare situations and Democratic appointees going on a fishing expedition. We are not talking about an American citizen who is suspected of a crime and has certain constitutional rights. I do not think that a person conducting an interrogation is "evil" I was LMAO when I heard about the "horror" of evil Yankee interrogators exploiting a detainee's fear of bugs. The Democrats are conducting a partisan witch hunt and tearing the country apart. I remember well the "Love it or leave it." bumper stickers from the sixties. You seem to have latched on to that slogan with singular gusto. No thanks. It's my country too. See you at the mid term elections. Don't let the curtain in the voting booth hit you in the @$$.
34 months ago: Whether you were "LMAO" about it or not, IT. IS. ILLEGAL. We are America. We are a nation of laws. Whether the torture is physical or psychological, it's torture.

And I love how you "LMAO" at exploited fears (which is bad enough) and leave out the things like anal rape, beatings, and water torture. You can cling to your increasingly silly idea that enforcing the law is a "partisan witch hunt" all you want, but I'd rather a robust loyal opposition party than the increasingly deranged and regional one the Republican party is becoming. Try to bear in mind that a solid majority of the country now supports investigations, so you can take your "tearing the country apart" manure and grow a nice flower garden with it. The country's doing fine, thanks.

P.S. Glad you're staying. A lot of Republicans told me to leave the country when I complained about the Bush administration's illegal activities, siding with party loyalty over country and law.
34 months ago: A couple of other points I didn't mention before...

* A prisoner of war has rights under the Geneva Conventions. As a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, we are constitutionally bound to follow them.
* We are not allowed to torture foreign prisoners under the Conventions or under international law.
* Regardless, torture doesn't work. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed STOPPED TALKING when he was waterboarded. Until then, he'd been singing like a canary.
34 months ago: HeyNoniNoni??? If as you say all torture is wrong... why do you torture us with that dribble? Isn't it the same? Don't you hold yourself to your own words? I think not and am expecting another onslaught of your hypocrisy.

At least everyone knows where I stand.

You on the other hand? Lost between your handlers topics.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
34 months ago: I'd never heard that banana republic definition before, Rudi--I love it.

This country is in a state of permanent war, figurative and literal. Citing "wartime" as some magical twilight where conventions like democracy, transparency, and accountability are scrapped is a cop-out, and a dangerously convenient precedent. You could cite examples from the Civil War (like the suspension of habeas corpus), but I'd argue that the country's leadership at the time knew that to be an extraordinary case, not an escape clause.

About the "fear of bugs": torture is torture, and I hate establishing torture hierarchies--it's a sophist's argument. Pick the particular phobia that terrifies you--maybe to the point of heart attack or stroke. What's the difference? Degree, immediacy?
34 months ago: Heynoni:
So, we can put you on the side of the terrorists who murdered thousands of men, women and children huh?
Your position is absurd for any number of reasons, including IT'S NOT TORTURE! We never inflicted pain on this scumbag murderers.
Your also either living in a dreamworld or downright intellectually dishonest if you believe that fat slob Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stopped spilling the beans after he was waterboarded.
34 months ago: 183 times. That's how often KSM was waterboarded. And you should bear in mind that the SERE guys, the ones whose torture *resistance* techniques our torture policy was reverse-engineered from, absolutely call it torture. Agonizing torture, in fact. Psychologically, it exploits the fear of drowning, because you're *actually drowning*. Physically, it causes no scars, unless you have a laryngospasm so strong you need a tracheotomy to keep breathing, and broken bones from the death struggle can be set without any long-term visible proof of torture, but I hear they're pretty painful.

I can't imagine there was much left of KSM's mind after years of stress positions, sleep deprivation, beatings, and waterboarding. Sure, he probably still coughed out a nugget of useful intel with the stream of bull-pucky necessary to make the hurting stop, but that must have taken a lot of man hours to sort through. Huh, just thought of something... I'm glad there wasn't a "ticking time-bomb" because it seems like torturing people takes a hell of a long time.

In any event, you don't have to take my word for any of this. There have been all sorts of stories coming out lately about KSM and Abu Zubaida. In Zubaida's case, we were getting good information from him until the waterboarding started, then got the typical say-anything-to-make-it-stop useless crap.

It's torture. Heck, in your heart of hearts, you probably know it. You probably know you'd admit to being, say, the mastermind of the London bombings and the Zodiac killer for good measure if you thought it would make it stop. 14 seconds is how long the SERE guys typically last.

I understand if you don't have the courage to try it and prove once and for all to yourself whether it's torture. Fortunately, other Republicans -- Erich "Mancow" Muller and Christopher Hitchens, for instance -- put their beliefs to the test and had themselves waterboarded. Conclusion? Absolutely, positively torture.
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
34 months ago: I would like to see some of the concern that is shown for al Qaeda prisoners shown to American prisoners. The tolerance of prison violence in America amounts to state sanctioned torture. Conservatives usually won''t deal with that and liberals don't like to admit that an underclass can have its own moral failings. The day eric Holder shows some concern for the human rights of American prisoners is the day I will somewhat respect him.
34 months ago: Rudi, that's a totally different topic. It's a valid one, certainly, but I'm not sure what it has to do with whether or not we enforce the laws and treaties we have against torture.

Although now that you mention American prisoners, there's a very practical reason not to torture... We don't want our enemies torturing Americans they capture out of retaliation.
Conyndoc
Conyndoc
Waynesboro, VA
34 months ago: We need immediate arrests of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield, Gonzales, and many others of the rotten previous regime. Then we need a televised tribunal of all of these people with all of the evidence and photos and videos of torture televised.
Them we need a high security prison to put these people in-say- Guantanemo.
34 months ago: Conyndoc, we don't do torture and we don't do circus tribunals. We're America, and we're better than that. They deserve fair trials in courts of law, and a valid guilty (or, theoretically, innocent) verdict. Then, should the verdict be guilty, they should be made to answer for their crimes per the law. Vindictiveness has no place in the process, however much I may loath them for what they did to my country.
34 months ago: Go for it! I'd love to see how SOTO votes on a retroactive law. If it can be upheld then we need to take it a step further and go after everyone for the last 233 years and take back all of their money and lock their families up for living off of the ill-gotten gains for so long.
34 months ago: Retroactive law? What in the world are you talking about? What retroactive law?
34 months ago: I'm saying it will take a retroactive law to do what Conyndoc suggests. Then everyone will be fair game.
34 months ago: Why would we need a retroactive law to arrest people if, say, there was evidence of complicity in torture? It's *already* illegal. Nothing retroactive about it.
34 months ago: What torture? More importantly what law? Name them.
I'd like to see the U.S.Code on that issue. Please don't cite any 'International' guidelines. U.S. Code only.
34 months ago: Watch it Cypress.
Don't post comments that they have to ignore.
Watch. Heynoni will not name one law that was broken. Not one.
(heynoni, to prosecute someone, there has to be an American law broken.)
Sorry
34 months ago: The treaties we've signed *ARE* U.S. Code. We are bound by the Constitution to abide by them. Our treaties are the law of the land, like it or not. But since you really want a U.S. Code, I'll happily provide it: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html

That's Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C. I think you'll particularly appreciate the definition. To quote none other than Christopher Hitchens, "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."
34 months ago: BWAHAHAHA! Oh, that is rich! I was in the middle of pointing out our Constitutional requirements and exactly where in the U.S. Code torture is defined and outlawed -- including a handy link -- and then I refreshed the page only to see redstateguy's epic fail! Thank you for my laugh of the day, redstateguy. I needed it.
34 months ago: OK Noni, I read it. It does not apply. If you think it does please spell it out so I can slam you with why it doesn't. The why it doesn't if clear in the code you submitted. Have any more litte self defined U.S.C.?
34 months ago: Heynoni:
I stand corrected. You did name a law.
I apologize; however, I argue the law does not apply to defense of this country by OUR GOVERNMENT. That is the operative word. The statute does not apply to OUR GOVERNMENT, ie, government employees.
Read the definition again of "torture":

"'torture' means an act committed by a person ACTING UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;"

I added the emphasis.

If you or I infict pain or mental suffering PRETENDING to be the government, we violate the law. Those brave souls prying life saving information from scum bag fascist muslim scum bags is not a crime. It is their duty, and we should praise them for it.

As Cypress said, try again.

34 months ago: Heynoni:
Are you still laughing out loud?
I'm trying to respect your opinion, but I believe you are out in left field.
Am I wrong?
34 months ago: Can you name an applicable law?
34 months ago: Dumb me! I hate that when it happens.

Noni, you state 'The treaties we've signed *ARE* U.S. Code.'

Treaties? That is truly funny to think that a treaty is governed by any law. I am guessing your heading towards international law like your buddy SOTO.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
34 months ago: Now a compelling argument that Cheney ordered the CIA to keep an assassination program (outlawed under Ford, Executive Order 11905) quiet, in violation of the National Security Act of 1947. But hey, we should ignore this--in the spirit of moving forward. It's only our democracy we're talking about.

Such is life in a banana republic. One man, consistently flouting his constitutionally-proscribed role, treats a national intelligence agency like a private security force. The narrative of Cheney's malignant, criminal influence grows by the day.
34 months ago: Oh, Cheney and the CIA... and a V.P. can order the CIA to do their bidding. I forgot. Cheney was the 'Real' President. While youre at it on the 'Black Ops', throw some out from some Democrats. Why be a pointed onesided hypocrite?
34 months ago: Jak:
That's the biggest bunch of intellectual dishonest BS there is.
Bush and Cheney STOPPED THE PROGRAM BEFORE IT WAS IMPLEMENTED.
That is absolute nonsense to say they did anything when the PROGRAM NEVER EXISTED.
You're stooping to pelosi/demwhit reed levels.
Stop it. You have too much self respect for that nonsense.
Come on!
34 months ago: Jak:
I'm surprised at you.
This whole thing is a counterattack to keep Pelosi from being shown she is a flat out liar.
34 months ago: Oh. My. God. Are you guys trolling me? Seriously, are you guys just silly trolls? I'm starting to think you are. Guys, guys, if you're really not trolls, then I'd like to introduce you to a cool new technology called "the Google." With the Google, you can do things like locate websites that contain the U.S. Code, the Constitution, and other useful resources on the law.

Now then... First up, TCG. You said:

"It does not apply. If you think it does please spell it out so I can slam you with why it doesn't."

OK, then. I think it applies -- and as it happens, most lawyers agree with me -- because waterboarding very much matches the legal definition of torture this law provides. Now tell me why most of the lawyers in this country are wrong. Please point to the specific text that indicates that waterboarding doesn't qualify as torture, or that when done under executive branch orders torture magically becomes legal. Feel free to use Nixon's when-the-President-does-it-it's-legal defense.
34 months ago: Continued...

Now then, redstateguy, you responded several times. Your first response was, I'm astonished to see, the Nixon defense. Seriously? Seriously? You gotta be pulling my leg. U.S. Code just vanishes under executive orders? And please don't twist "acting under the color of law" to mean anything than what it means: Fulfilling one's official duties. It means we're not allowed to use the "I was just following orders" defense. We're not allowed to be like the Nazis.

Moving on... A couple of non-applicable posts, then you said this:

"Treaties? That is truly funny to think that a treaty is governed by any law. I am guessing your heading towards international law like your buddy SOTO."

Sigh. OK, this is from the U.S. Constitution, Article V: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Come on, guys. This is grade-school stuff. You don't know the content of our own Constitution.
34 months ago: Whoops, meant to say that's Article VI. Dran tpyos...
34 months ago: Noni:
There you go again with "Most _________ agree with me". Would that be a "legal consensus"?
We're not buying that.

Read the statute. The law only applies to those PRETENDING to work for the government. Granted waterboarding probably falls under the definition of "torture", but THE STATUTE DOES NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. They are NOT acting "under color of law."

And most lawyers don't agree with you. I am sorry, but they don't, at least the ones that can read.
34 months ago: You obviously don't understand what "under color of law" means. Seriously, call a lawyer and ask. If the law against torture was intended to apply only to those who were pretending to work for the government (a downright silly idea), then the phrasing would have been something like "under the false pretense of law."

Seriously, why make torture only illegal for people who are pretending to work for the government? That's nonsensical.

Beyond that, I'm done doing your research for you. There are literally thousands of news stories about the prevailing legal opinion ("legal consensus," if you will) that torture is illegal and that waterboarding constitutes torture. I already used "the Google" to find you a link to the U.S. Code, which you're apparently intentionally misunderstanding. And I used "the Google" to find you the actual text of the U.S. Constitution -- which apparently you have no answer for, so may I assume you now accept that the treaties we've signed are, as Constitutionally mandated, the "supreme Law of the Land?"
34 months ago: redstateguy, all mocking aside, I'd seriously like to know if you now accept that treaties are the law of the land. This isn't a question of politics. It's got nothing to do with the various right/left arguments in this country. It's above the partisan divide.

The text of the Constitution lays out explicitly that treaties are U.S. law. In fact, it grants them the same regard as law as it grants itself. If you accept that, then you must accept that the treaties we have signed outlawing abuse of prisoners are, in fact, the law, regardless of how you might feel about it.

We are a nation of laws. Some of them are stupid laws in my opinion and ought to be changed, but I still abide by them and accept that they are currently the laws of the country. If you still cannot accept treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land," then I can't help but conclude you are incapable of accepting facts that you personally find distasteful, and that is sad.
34 months ago: Still nothing? Bueller? Bueller?
34 months ago: I guess that's it, then. I sincerely hope redstateguy is using his time away from this forum to read the Constitution.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.