Liberal schmiberal: Torture is illegal

I had to laugh when reading a recent Associated Press article about 'liberal democrats' (and the story made a point of pointing out that the Democrats were LIBERAL) who are calling for an independent investigation into Bush era torture procedures.

WASHINGTON – Congressional Democrats turned up the pressure on the Obama administration Tuesday to start a criminal investigation by a special counsel into harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects.

It would be a conflict of interest for President Barack Obama's Justice Department to investigate lawyers from the Bush administration, even though they no longer work for the government, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Democrats wrote, "It is impossible to determine at this stage, and before conclusion of the necessary investigation, whether additional conflicts of interest might exist or arise."

The letter said a special counsel's investigation would insulate the department from accusations that the investigation was politically inspired.

Most of the 16 signers were Democratic liberals. Seven committee Democrats did not sign the letter, nor did any of the 16 Republicans.

Independent investigation means an investigation done by people who are, by their very independent nature, not going to do this in a partisan manner. The entire point is to take the politics out of this discussion and look at the legality. And yet conservative democrats and of course Republicans slam the very idea of investigating criminal behavior - and yes, torture is illegal - in the last administration because of course, that would be 'partisan.'

And that is a giant crock of BS.

I'm an independent. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I don't consider myself 'liberal' or 'conservative.' I do however believe in the Geneva Conventions, our Constitution and our rule of law. I believe that all three were ravaged during the last administration, and I want to see an investigation. I believe our safety as a country resides entirely in our right as citizens to hold our government accountable to the law and to the people who supposedly represent our American democracy. I believe that if we stray as a nation from our ideals, then we have to make a firm move back to them by holding ourselves and our leaders accountable. If we can't do that... we are no longer a democracy.

If we all know that torture is illegal and against the Geneva Conventions (not to mention all sense of morality;) and we all know that Bush and Cheney directed the CIA to torture - they even admitted it - then we as a nation are all on the hook for their behavior until an investigation takes place. All of us. Every single one of us. We are responsible as a nation until we pin the behavior on the handful of bad apples who perpetuated it.

This is not a partisan issue: this is a national issue. This is a question of who we are as Americans, and what we are willing to sweep under the rug to remain comfortable. Its also a question of bullying, because the Republicans are desperate that this information not be investigated, and are using anything and everything to bully the rest of us into dropping it.

But it must not be dropped. This is our national soul on the line.

I personally am not comfortable. I won't be comfortable until the America I believe in - the ideals of liberty and justice that our grandfathers fought for against fascism in WWII, not to mention the freedom our ancestors bled for in the Revolution and Civil Wars - is redeemed. Many soldiers of our grandfathers' generation were tortured - were waterboarded - during WWII. Those who tortured them (those that we caught and tried after the war) were punished; some were executed. I can't even imagine what surviving POWs from that great war must be thinking today. We are betraying them.

Our children and grandchildren will judge us by how we behave today. Right now... we have earned an 'F' in restoring justice to our land. And we are proving to be cowards in the face of bullying by those who use the word 'partisan' to escape any further embarrassment and political association to an administration that they allowed to run amok.

If the sky wasn't falling, and the racists in the streets...

... we'd be talking about the recent and scathing indictment of the Bush administration by the DOJ - really - and their call for more investigation of unethical and criminal conduct of lawmakers, and of the Bush Administration.

The DOJ actually did its job this time. Investigators from Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility both determined that political pressure did lead to the dismissal of at least three of the nine federal prosecutors fired under Alberto Gonzales' reign of partisan terror.

From the Toledo Blade:

At the time, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted the individuals were all dismissed for inadequate performance, or failure to implement the President’s law enforcement agenda.

But it appears the longtime pal and adviser to President Bush was lying through his teeth. Turns out the real reason some of the top federal lawyers were removed from the job, according to the Justice Department report, was that either the U.S. attorneys had the audacity to prosecute Republicans or because they failed to aggressively prosecute Democrats.

Either way, their behavior ticked off well-connected GOP politicians who had come to expect a politically loyal Justice Department. A couple of calls from powerful New Mexico Republican officeholders helped push former U.S. attorney David Iglesias out of a job. Evidently, the top New Mexico prosecutor was remiss in his duty to produce criminal charges against Democrats in the run-up to the 2006 election.

Another U.S. attorney in Missouri lost his post over a petty complaint from Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, and still another was bumped to make room for a protégé of White House political adviser Karl Rove. There was a pervading culture of partisanship/loyalty-above-all-else in the department, recalled one of the fired attorneys.

“Not only were my colleagues and I not insulated from politics — as we should have been in our jobs as prosecutors — but we were fired for the most partisan reasons,” Mr. Iglesias said.

A nation of laws and not men. How have we let eight years of continuing scandal, corruption, and broken laws go on unchecked?

Is it any wonder that our economy is collapsing and we have lost literally all respect around the world? If we had truly remembered that we are a nation of laws - and Pelosi hadn't cut some deal with the devil and refused to address the out-of-control Bush Administration - perhaps things would be different today.

We'll never know. I hold the House Democratic leadership accountable for failing to do their job.

There are now official documents from the DOJ confirming that the firing of U.S. attorneys was politically motivated.

The commentator in the Toledo Blade, Marilou Jonanek, seems to feel that Americans are 'scandal-weary' -- but are we really? Perhaps all we need is a little old-fashioned justice trickling down from the top.

I do NOT believe that Americans are willing to 'dismiss yet another administration disgrace;' but it is obvious that House Democrats have no interest in bringing Bush to justice, perhaps for their own partisan political reasons. Of course this makes them no better than collaborators, but they expect to get a win out of this mess, and a big one at that. The good of the nation and the rule of law... secondary to winning. How ironic that their impending 'win' will be marred by chaos, recession (if not full out depression,) war and crippling debt. They may win the presidency and a majority, but at what price to the nation?

New Attorney General Michael Mukasey has appointed a federal prosecutor to investigate whether Bush himself broke the law. Unfortunately there may not be time to finish this late-in-coming investigation before this epic (and seemingly endless) administration comes to an end.

There have been so many lies, broken laws and power grabs during the eight years of Bush rule that the White House and the office of president have been forever tarnished and perhaps forever damaged. Certainly our reputation as a nation and any trust we once had from other nations has been squandered.

Because there were no legal consequences for this historic abuse of power, Pelosi has left the door open for a repeat performance in the future. And God help us when it arrives; it will undoubtedly take a generation to recover from this one.

FBI Investigates Wall Street

Go Lou!

Showdown

After a rather hairy appearance by Sara Taylor, White House Political Director (throwing doubt on Bush's executive privilege claims,) Bush apparently decided to not even allow Harriet to appear for her summons tomorrow.

That's right - time for a congressional showdown.

President Bush ordered his former White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to defy a congressional subpoena and refuse to appear Thursday before a House panel investigating U.S. attorney firings.

"Ms. Miers has absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony as to matters occurring while she was a senior adviser to the president," White House Counsel Fred Fielding wrote in a letter to Miers' lawyer, George T. Manning.

Yes, but does she really? According to an AP report:

Conyers said of Miers, Bush's former White House lawyer, "As a former public official and officer of the court, Ms. Miers should be especially aware of the need to respect legal process, and we expect her to appear before the committee tomorrow as scheduled."

Fielding said the Justice Department had advised the White House that Miers had absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony.

"The president has directed her not to appear at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, July 12, 2007," Fielding wrote.

Conyers is going to be there, right on time. Showdown. Be there or be... be what? Conyers and Sanchez have posted this response to the Fielding letter:

We are aware of absolutely no court decision that supports the notion that a former White House official has the option of refusing to even appear in response to a Congressional subpoena. To the contrary, the courts have made clear that no present or former government official – even the President – is above the law and may completely disregard a legal directive such as the Committee’s subpoena. ...

A refusal to appear before the Subcommittee tomorrow could subject Ms. Miers to contempt proceedings, including but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C. § 194 and under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives.

And what exactly is 'inherent contempt authority?' I gather it is something that can't be pardoned or dodged.

And what exactly happened to Ms. Taylor that put the fear in the White House? Apparently Taylor got a little tripped up in her testimony. She refused to answer a question once, then answered it later, and gave conflicting answers to several others. In other words - apparently this information isn't so 'secret' after all, the Bushies just kinda don't want to talk about it.

[Taylor] quickly found out what Miers might have already known: It's almost impossible to answer some questions but not others without breaching either the subpoena or Bush's executive privilege claim.

"I have not done a great job at that," Taylor said of the predicament at one point. "I have tried."

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said that may not be enough to protect her from a contempt citation.

"There's no way you can come out a winner," said Specter, the panel's senior GOP member and also its former chairman. "You might have been on safer legal ground if you'd said absolutely nothing."

As for the prospects of pursuing a criminal citation for contempt of Congress, Leahy said, "That's a decision yet to be made."

Deciding to belatedly heed Specter's words, the White House decided to keep Miers home from Congress. And there may be some interesting fallout if she doesn't show up tomorrow.

Bush actually went so far as to order Miers to not to appear in Congress. She is to completely ignore the summons. Due to the now questionable nature of the executive privilege claim, Bush may be in the process of violating Section 1505 - interfering with a Congressional investigation.

According to Talking Points Memo, this may be a felony.

Invoking a privilege is one thing, but telling a person not to show up in response to a subpoena -- if only to actually invoke the privilege -- is quite another. It's not just worse, it's a felony under federal criminal law. See for yourself.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1505 : ... Whoever corruptly ... influences, obstructs, or impedes ... the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress ... [s]hall be fined under this title, [or] imprisoned not more than 5 years ... or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 1515(b): As used in section 1505, the term "corruptly" means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including ... withholding, [or] concealing ... information.

The chess match is heating up.