Should President Obama Pardon Bush/Cheney for War Crimes?

Image found at TrueActivist

Every so often, in politics, there is a really interesting play on the table. Something you didn't expect. Something that may accomplish part of a long-held goal, but possibly in a roundabout way. That's happening right now, though the odds are long that it would ever happen.

Just about everybody agrees that the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney administration authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques" in the years following September 11, 2001, and that they were. . .extra-legal. Most people agree that these techniques went over the line, and I'd be willing to guess that a majority consider them outright torture. Where a partisan divide appears is in whether or not we care that we tortured people.

One could argue that a patriot should care. The United States of America is not supposed to commit war crimes with impunity, torture with no oversight, or imprison without due process. Especially at times when we're burning for vengeance, or just plain scared. Those are the times when our laws, our treaties, our moral compasses, our humanity and our Constitution need to be vigorously defended and adhered to. If not, exactly what are we defending?

Image from the (hopefully ironically titled)
WeMeantWell.com

So, while we quibble about how much over the line GWB & Co. went, we know they crossed it. Many of us think of them as outright war criminals. But we're also aware that--even though the other side can impeach a sitting president for lying about a trifle--there is no political stomach for trying and convicting any of those involved for said crimes. Which gives zero incentive for future presidents to follow even the most serious of laws. And the clock is running. Can we really expect the next president, or the next, to act on something so far in the rear view?

And act how? No way there's a trial or trials. It's just not going to happen. But someone has come up with a novel solution: Have President Obama pardon them all. It's a radical solution. It lets everyone off the hook. There might even be international blowback just for that. But it also brands them all as war criminals. Exonerated, but criminals, nonetheless. It's an asterisk that will be in every history book. And it would potentially act as a deterrent from a future president from crossing that line. Every person who wants to be president has an outsized ego. They do not want to be branded a war criminal, no matter how power-hungry they are.

All of that said, I think there's close to a zero chance that Obama would do it. I think personally, he'd love to. But I'm not sure the political will of the party apparatus is even there for that. Which is a pity. But think about this: should the GOP follow through with their "Operation: Kill Obama's Legacy" plan in the next two years, this could be in his back pocket.

[Excerpt]
 

Maddow: Pardon Bush for Torture To "Make It Clear Crimes Were Committed"



RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Tonight, the head of the national ACLU has just published this op-ed in the New York Times. It calls for President Obama to issue a pardon to former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney and other senior Bush administration officials for overseeing torture as the U.S. policy for years. . .

Read more at: Real Clear Politics

The Fake, Annual, War on Christmas

I've written on this subject many times in the seven holiday seasons I've been blogging. And I'll continue to, considering how it keeps cropping up as though it's a legitimate "problem." In reality, the "War on Christmas" is a manufactured outrage, a complete nonsense story that has been an unlikely success story for Bill O'Reilly, FOX "News," Sarah Palin, and others in Right Wing World.

Contrary to the claims, there is no organized effort to shunt Christmas to the sidelines, and if there were it would likely be a) by Christians, offended by the crass commercialization of the holiday, and b) considered a complete failure by now. With the backward creep of "Black Friday," and the appearance of Christmas trimmings starting to appear in August in some places, Christmas is more visible than it ever has been.

In my opinion, the success of this faux crisis came about in a perfect storm of a number of elements:
- Conservative outrage over challenges to religious displays on public property.
- Conservative paranoia toward the ACLU, atheism, "secularism," and diversity.
- Conservative antipathy toward anything deemed to be more "inclusive" or sensitive to other beliefs.
- Occasional overboard actions or reactions by individual school administrators or jurisdictions. A declaration that the word "Christmas" be struck or replaced from a musical program, and the like. Outliers depicted as a trend, in other words.
- The tendency of conservatives to feel like a victimized minority, even though they're statistically part of the majority (read: heavily white and Christian).
- A strange confluence between the "Put the Christ back in Christmas/reason-for-the-season" sort, and the prosperity gospel, "greed-is-good" modern-day conservative base, resulting in an orgy of consumerism that must be labeled CHRISTmas!
- A populace with a limited memory, and the difficult-to-pin-down origins of the perennial "Seasons' Greetings" and "Happy Holidays" phrases.

O'Reilly claims that those two phrases were a plot, in the last 10 years or so, to supplant the word, the concept, the holiday of Christmas. This is of course, preposterous. I'm 47, and have a good memory. I know for certain that both phrases were being used in the early 70s. I'm positive they go further back. Back then, the only controversial wording was "X-Mas," and even that is misunderstood (the "X" is actually a cross, folks). So right off the bat, we know that O'Reilly is blowing smoke: the phrases have been on greeting cards and in ads for decades now. I have a program from our school winter musical, in festive, snow-capped letters, reading: "1978 Winter Holiday Concert!" That's 35 years, Bill, and it included Hava Nagila.  [Story continues below]



So, we should be able to conclude that there is no conspiracy, and if there were, it isn't working. But let's flip it, shall we? Why should we take O'Reilly's side, and be forced to say "Merry Christmas" from late November until (presumably) New Year's? Why "merry" and not "happy," "festive," "joyous" or "groovy?" Why does the Christmas holiday--one day, incidentally--get to override every other holiday (and holiday party, and gift exchange, and work gathering, and Thanksgiving and Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa and New Year's Eve), with the insistence that "Merry Christmas" is the only proper and legitimate greeting? It's preposterous, as well as a little too precise when you want to wish someone a happy holiday season, rather than just the one day.

I'm no longer Christian, but I was raised one. I still celebrate Christmas, and when I can, take off the whole week. I'm not offended by the phrase "Merry Christmas," and believe me, most people aren't. Not even Jewish, Muslim or atheist people. People taking offense are almost entirely fabricated, part of this phony-baloney "war." You might find a nutty activist, trying to ban the word in some Podunk school system in Backwater, Pennsyltucky.  But not a movement. FOX "News" is fighting a straw man. . .snow man?


 

ACLU Speaks Out About California's Proposition 8

Good clip. Watch.

Get Active: Add Your Name to ACLU Ad

I'm going to give an effort to make this my last post on the FISA vote for the day. I know that I'm a bit more passionate about it than some people are. But if you're like me, and you were angered by this decision, here's a way to vent, just a little bit:

[From Email]

Congress just compromised your rights by passing the FISA Amendments Act.

Today elected officials in Washington sold out the Constitution -- again.

Cowed by the Bush administration's pre-election scare tactics, the Senate passed privacy-stealing FISA legislation undermining your Fourth Amendment rights.

It's outrageous, unconstitutional and un-American. That's why the ACLU is prepared to challenge this law the moment George Bush signs it -- and you can rest assured, they'll be meeting our lawyers in court.

Our lawsuit will send a powerful message to those in Congress who played it safe when they had the opportunity to defend the Constitution. You can join the ACLU in sending that message by signing on to our ad letting Congress know that if they won't stand up for freedom, you and the ACLU will.

We'll be taking out a full-page ad in a major national newspaper announcing our lawsuit and expressing our outrage at this abandonment of Constitutional principles. Our goal is to run an ad that contains the names of tens of thousands of Americans who believe in the Constitution and want Congress to hear us loud and clear: next time, stand up for our rights.

Click here to include your name in the ACLU's FISA newspaper ad.

ACLU to Sue Over FISA Vote

Image from source, Raw Story

OK, feeling even better now. I still hate that the Senate (including 1/3 of Democrats) voted for the FISA bill. But maybe it's fixable. Cross your fingers.

[Excerpt]

ACLU, EFF will challenge FISA update in court

As the Senate voted to endorse a Bush-administration backed plan to expand its surveillance authority and grant retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that facilitated warrantless wiretapping, the American Civil Liberties Union unveiled plans to challenge the new law in court. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Bush May Be Forced to Explain Torture Tapes

Photo from RawStory

Well, yeah. Why does this administration continue to assert that no one is allowed to challenge them, even when it is clear that they may have broken the law? And why do they usually get away with it?

Color me: Sick. Of. It.

[Excerpt]

Bush May Be Forced to Explain Destroyed CIA Torture Tapes

An ACLU lawsuit might force the Bush administration to reveal what actually happened.

By my count, there appear to be no less than ten preliminary investigations underway, following the revelation that the CIA destroyed at least two sets of videotapes (containing hundreds of hours of footage) of "advanced interrogation" techniques being employed in terrorism investigations. In fact, every branch of government is now involved. . .

Read more at: AlterNet

Sen. Larry Craig's New Ally: The ACLU

Photo from source, RawStory.com

It's true what they say. Politics does make strange bedfellows. Or stall-fellows, whatever the case may be. Yes, the much-maligned ACLU, demonized as Nazis and worse by the far-right, has come to Craig's defense, taking a (ahem) wide-stance in his support. It just goes to show, the ACLU cares about everybody's rights, even closeted anti-gay gay Senators. Allegedly.

[Excerpt]

Craig's foot taps are 'constitutionally protected,' ACLU says

One of the nation's oldest advocates of civil rights has come to the defense of alleged bathroom-sex-soliciting Sen. Larry Craig, saying his foot tapping and hand waving in an airport restroom do not provide enough evidence that he was going to engage in sexual activity in public.

The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the Minneapolis airport police sting aimed at preventing public sex in its restrooms. The ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief Monday arguing that Craig should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge and fight the case because police failed to prove he attempted to engage in sexual activity in public.

Read the rest at: RawStory.com

More on the ACLU vs. Bush Administration

This is the ad from the ACLU, trying to drum up support for it's action demanding accountability from the White House on warrentless wiretapping. This is for you, Lesto!

Click image for larger version.

Click here to go to the ACLU Home page.

Bush Ordered to Reply to ACLU

Photo from impeachforpeacemarshall.org

Well, being a Las Vegan, I'd wager Bush is going to ignore this one too. . .

[Excerpt]

Secret Court Asks For White House View on Inquiry
ACLU Seeking Rulings Issued On Warrantless Wiretapping

A secret U.S. intelligence court has ordered the Bush administration to register its views about a records request by the American Civil Liberties Union, which wants the court to release a series of pivotal orders issued earlier this year about the National Security Agency's wiretapping program.

The move is highly unusual, because the court -- which approves warrants for electronic surveillance within the United States by intelligence and counterterrorism agencies -- operates in almost total secrecy and has made only one ruling public in its 29-year history. . .

Read more at WashingtonPost.com

ACLU vs. NSA on Wiretapping

As reported by RawStory, The ACLU was unsuccessful in its attempt to sue the NSA over the Bush Administration's illegal wiretapping program. They promise to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is in no way allegient to the Bushies, right?

[Excerpt]
ACLU considering Supreme Court appeal over NSA spying

Nick Juliano
Published: Friday July 6, 2007

The American Civil Liberties said Friday it is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court after a lower court threw out its case against the National Security Agency over an illegal domestic spying program authorized by the Bush administration.

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s decision that insulates the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails," ACLU legal director Steven Shapiro said in a prepared statement. Read more at RawStory.com


Nearly as interesting to me was the following, from RawStory's comments section. This guy sums it up better than I could hope to:

Kafka couldn't have improved on this: Nobody who cannot prove his phone was illegally tapped has legal standing to sue to find out whether his phone was illegally tapped; and Congress -- the only branch of government able to take non-judicial action to do something about this legally unreviewable rape of our Constitution -- says "impeachment is off the table," bravely threatening our elected King with a possible lawsuit which certainly will either be quickly dismissed as nonjusticiable or delayed until after our next King has been elected (and then dismissed as moot). Meanwhile, our political leaders (of both parties) lead us in patriotic chants of "We're Number One!" Welcome to the Third World, fellow Americans.

Richard Young
Email
07.06.07 - 3:02 pm

Direct link to this comment

Sphere: Related Content