...or it could be that Pelosi's statements were just the opening act of one huge Kabuki drama.

Pelosi was amongst those made privi to the "enhanced interrogation" program along with Jane Harmon. It's my understanding that Harmon raised objections but that Pelosi didn't. There's been a feud between those two since Pelosi passed over Harmon for the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee. We may be in for a humongous cat fight if Pelosi was serious but I'm inclined to believe that what is going on now is merely the opening act of the Kabuki Dance of the Seven Voles.

For those who may be interested or just wish to educate themselves, I have linked at my signature, a website which gives a brief timeline of events pertaining to the use of torture by the United States, and it also has many links to sources of the timeline and articles having to do with this subject.

The website Torturing Democracy has a wealth of information pertaining to this subject also.

One could argue that Nancy Pelosi had a legal obligation to bring impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, but used political considerations as an excuse for willfully ignoring that responsibility.

When your investigative net draws in Feinstein and Rockefeller for aiding and abetting illegal wiretapping, and democrats face prosecution as well, the talk will turn to "how far do we need to go?"

Even Mukasey unequivocally admits torture is a crime. Which, is why just the other day, after the Holden confirmation hearing he came out publicly stating his concern over Holden's use of the word. And, why he admits he refused to use the word in his confirmation hearings and thereafter.

Jan. 17, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123214439576391669.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised concerns that government agents and national security lawyers may be at risk for criminal prosecution after his likely successor, Eric Holder, declared that waterboarding of terror detainees is torture.

"Torture is a crime," Mr. Mukasey said in an interview Friday, adding that he worried "about the effect on…the work of fine intelligence lawyers who are called on to make judgments on questions like that, often under tremendous time pressure -- not to mention the pressure of an attack that killed 3000 people [and caused worry that] maybe there was going to be another one."

Mr. Mukasey acknowledged that one reason he didn't answer the question as Mr. Holder did was because of the peril it would pose to agents and lawyers who he believes did their best under trying circumstances following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

"It's one thing to write opinion on matter of abstruse law. It's quite something else to write [opinions] on whether something is or isn't a crime," he said. He added that in the future, government lawyers and agents "have to be concerned that you may someday -- having given your best, most honest, most impartial advice -- have it be said of you that you sanctioned a crime."

I see the concern trolls have arrived, throwing the old canard about Obama not being able to address the overwhelming domestic issues and initiate an investigation into Bush Administration War Crimes, as if he's a one-man band or something.

Back when I was a junior political scientist at The Ohio State University (emphasis on THE), I took a class on the American President and learned that the Prez really is mainly a Human Resources Machine. He hires a TON of people. He staffs departments and embassies and offices across the globe. Don't you think he'll have a little help with this investigation/prosecution business?

Meanwhile back at the hidey-hole of militia where Farragut is sentry, don't you goons realize that your coup already failed? Oh, you got about five good years out of it before the walls started caving in, but your guys blew it. Now, I would love to see your heroes marched out wearing a blindfold smoking a cigarette some day, but it's more likely that some of them will conveniently die before that (see also: Lay, Kenny).

I'm convinced OBL is already dead and Dubya knew it.

MOTUS will pardon the Bush admin if prosecutions are brought.

Search in your hearts. You know it's true.

Didn't you mean to type an upper-case "N" as opposed to an "M"?

Search your heart. You know you wanted to.

1/18/09

Dear Glenn,

Just a couple of disconnected ideas on your great piece.

Is there any way to grasp to what degree the lawlessness and abuse of the justice system by the bush gang suppressed normal political discourse in our country and around the world? I am aware of protestors who were placed on the 'no fly' list for expressing anti-bush points of view.

And then in the bizarro world called congress is it possible that congress could impeach Obama for failing to prosecute the bush gang? Now that's justice.

Thanks for your good work,

Conrad Elledge

Forgive me, as I am not a lawyer, but aren't federal prosecutors subject to the APA? Can't some engaged constitutional scholar type; GG, apply for remedy that forces the procecution of these crimes? Didn't this used to be called the Mandamus?

First he posted at 9:13am:

But you know, reality has a conservative bias.

Which is laughable in and of itself, especially given he marshals no evidence of this claim. He then follows it at 10:28am with:

Heh. If you were correct then you wouldn't be whining about how unfair it is that Bush isn't being prosecuted would you.

One is increasingly hard pressed to believe this individual isn't actaully a Ateles paniscus hammering on a keyboard somewhere and merely getting lucky in its word and sentence construction.

The alternative, that somewhere is a homo sapien sapien who is this stupid, is truly too frightening to consider.

I don't believe you have your defaults correct. The ratification of the treaty can carve out reservations, unless they are carved out, the other signing parties are entitled to believe the treaty will be complied with, whereas you are asserting that unless each article is re-written in U.S. law, it does not apply. Our international obligations apply under the Vienna convention on treaties, and our compliance with the torture treaty has reflected our belief in compliance with the international obligations. The codification of the crimes in the treaty is what needs to be implemented and has been, in the two laws I named.

The Geneva Conventions are similarly implemented via the War Crimes Act. But if you ask, say, Jack Goldsmith whether or not we must obey Article 49 of the 4th convention, given that it is not explicitly mentioned in the War Crimes Act, even he will look at you with a big question mark on his face. He wouldn't have carved it up in a lengthy memo if he thought it wasn't implemented. Likewise, if Article 19 of the Torture treaty isn't implemented (it isn't in any explicit law) why would John Bolton, Mr. New Sovereigntist that he is, have argued our case in front of the Committee Against Torture? As a favor?

I made the comment about reading the treaty because you had said that "treaties are complex things" and this one isn't. If you've read it, you can see that. As I mentioned, some treaties are (that Vienna convention on treaties is a nightmare), a fact of which you are no doubt aware. I didn't mean to offend.