Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

863
Letters
Sunday, January 18, 2009 12:00 AM

Binding U.S. law requires prosecutions for those who authorize torture

The new Attorney General just said that Bush officials authorized torture. A treaty signed in 1988 by Ronald Reagan compels the U.S. to prosecute those who authorize torture. What's the way out of that?

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:05 AM

Mukasey is worried protecting about the lawyers and not The Law

He even uses the "ticking time bomb" rationale for his musings. What a load of crap.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:09 AM

Now

If I would only use that nifty "preview" feature.

Mukasy is worried about protecting lawyers...

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:10 AM

farragut

Just wait and see how far reaching the outrage goes. You will not be allowed to equate the Bush admin with al queda.

You and those like you will be forced to defend your point of view in the most extreme ways. -- farragut

1. Not very far.

2. They equated themselves with al Qaeda.

3. I'm ready. I know of no one who is afraid of silly fools like you.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:15 AM

You forget one thing, Glenn

Laws are for little people. If anyone is prosecuted, it'll be some low-level contractor or government official.

After all, we all know that Lyndie England masterminded Abu Gharib, right?

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:18 AM

@glenn

"Leaving aside the miserably defeatist and self-victimizing attitude ("it's all hopeless! We're never going to win! Our failure is inevitable! We're helpless to change anything!!!!"), even if you're right, is that a reason not to write about it and argue why it's wrong and destructive?"

Not at all. As I said, I'm a fan. Keep fighting the good fight. I'm just making, what is to my mind, a realistic statement. Obama (and the mainstream Democrats in general) has compromised himself on every significant issue. FISA, prosecution of Bush& co, the great American swindle (i.e., the bailout). I don't know how you fix the system, but working within the typical political/legislative channels doesn't seem to offer much hope of success.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:19 AM

re: Anandasubramanian

No it's not Bullshit.

First off, I corrected your spelling. Why you nutbars can't even spell correctly when posting your screeds is a mystery.

When sweet Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table for high crimes and misdemeanors, what she said clearly to us was:

"Law is for fools like you. We, the congress and the president, are above Law."

Oh, so now you read minds? Boy, you sure are clever!

Look dumbass, bitch and moan all you want concerning Pelosi. I'll even join you in many cases, but to speak so plainly *woe is us ... the country is now lawless* and beat your breast is childish and just plain stupid.

I guess Pelosi is now having second thoughts, huh? Must be magic. Or, maybe, just maybe this is how it works. Enough pressure gets applied and suddenly things that seemed impossible start happening.

Democracy in action, I think they call it.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:19 AM

farragut

rant all you want and spew the same crap you have since Bush won in 2000. That doesn't matter.

If prosecutions are moved forward there will be rebellion and you will find yourself in a very lonely, scary place. -- farragut

When your rebellion kicks off just do me a favor and let me know where you will be. You personally. Come here to Glenn's comment section (I read it most days) and let me know. I will come to you.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:27 AM

Just As Simple As That

... those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power. - Krugman

... nor if they intentionally and repeatedly violate multiple laws.

I'm not sure when "sovereign immunity" achieved legal standing in the courts, but Richard Nixon is the first President I can recall saying explicitly: "If the President does it, it's legal."

The "divine right of kings" was supposedly abolished in the American Revolution, but it has slowly crept back into the American psyche over the past century. Is there an inherent human craving for majestic and powerful "voices of God" on earth?

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:29 AM

Ultimately...

prosecution is moot. "progressives" don't have the stomach to confront their demons, real or imagined.

You'll apply the same beliefs to this that you do to terrorism. If we fight it we'll just make them hate us more. Better to appease them and hope to make them like us.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:30 AM

@jarrettw a minor adjustment to your statement

“As for Bush pardoning big dick and his gang of thugs,

“As for Bush pardoning his dick…” Two delightful meanings.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:30 AM

That's right! Thanks, Glenn. Lovely Law Language.

It can happen here.

Or anywhere.

We're supposed to be better than that.

A lot of empty rhetoric insists we are a shining source of justice.

President Obama must look forward to devise the path of rescue we will follow.

And his AG must solve the high crimes in every realm of misdeed recently contrived to subvert our right to rights and responsible ruling.

And, if such inquiry led to the disbarrment of some conspirator attorneys, too; how happy we would be..

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:31 AM

But they didn't know

Greenwald uses logic and facts to evaluate a situation as usual, but he ignores some very important points.

First of all, members of the administration were not aware that they were not above the law. They were led to believe that they were above the law for 8 years and suddenly crazy lawyer types make up new rules and claim that NO ONE is above the law in the US.

Secondly, everyone is aware that the constitution has a bias for legality without regard for the position and inherent goodness of the individuals in question. And how can it be just when it is so obviously biased?

Thirdly, everyone knows that closing your eyes and ears is the best way to make a political crime go away. Political crimes are as real as you see, hear and think about them. Try it. If everybody completely ignores them, they cease to exist! It's magic, you'll never hear of them. Who is the real criminal here? Then you can focus on things that really matter such as arresting as many people as possible for minor drug offenses.

p.s. I'm being sarcastic.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:31 AM

adnoto

See previous post.

Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:31 AM

re:re: off the table

We now have it all. The America, Love it or Leave it crowd showed up; this time from the faux-left.

KB4crap: This is such bullshit. Why do you have to speak in such absolutes when you are plainly wrong.

Wrong? Are you under the impression the Democratic leadership impeached Bush? Dude, that is some hash you smoke.

It is a sorry day when people cry that the congress should not be expected to do its duty and rein in the power of the executive. Especially when there has hardly been a more egregious example of misuse of the office. Nixon was an angel compared to this Bush/Chaney crowd.

So, go dream that Ameriker is a great place where often the rule of law is followed. Yes, thats the ticket -- it is sometimes followed. Except when it is not.

Most Active Letters Threads

666

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
543

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
438

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
209

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world
150

Mike Huckabee's fatally bad judgment

Brutality by another Huck-pardoned criminal suggests the 2012 GOP hopeful listened more to pastors than prosecutors

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon