- Obama's Refusal to Take Action on Bush War Crimes emboldens Republicans and UltraConservatives-
- Republicans and Conservatives argue that Obama will not proceed with investigations because no crimes were committed
- By not investigating these allegations President Obama is saying that no crimes were committed and therefore giving tacit approval of the abuse and torture of detainees except for the use of water-boarding which he has stated - he believes Bush and his gang made some bad decisions and that's the end of it
- This means that thousands of detainees will never receive any real justice from the Obama administration or any other
- This also means Obama and Bush's talk about human rights and such are meaningless
They claim Bush did nothing wrong by lying to Americans and to congress and the UN to launch his war in Iraq. Tammy Bruce says the Obama administration should not pursue investigations into alleged Bush era crimes because it will smack of Partisanship. She also makes light of detainees who claim to be abused or tortured by psychological and physical forms of torture - sensory deprivation or sensory overload combined with stress positions verbal abuse of insults and threats ; sleep deprivation, humiliation such as leading a naked man around on a dog leash , sexual humiliation - or mock executions, use of dogs to intimidate detainees, using female guards to humiliate prisoners, beatings which all goes to show that Tammy Bruce and Bill O'reilly's definition of torture is rather narrowly defined approximating that of Rumsfeld and Cheney which is that which is life threatening or may lead to organ failure. One they should read the Geneva Conventions and other International Agreements concerning torture which includes all of the above but now many Americans have been told that these practices are not torture or abuse its what one should expect if they are apprehended by US soldiers or CIA operatives etc. All of these forms of abuse if they are not life threatening are considered to be permissible by US soldiers and other US personnel and by a large sector of the American public.
So if President Obama does not at the least make official statements condemning all these forms of abuse and torture those US personnel in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere themselves will believe that such treatment is permissible and the general public will defend the use of such techniques all of which by the way do not achieve the goals which are desired that is the retrieving of useful and reliable information. But many Americans also believe as Bush, Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice and their ultra conservative supporters believe that the Geneva Conventions and International Law can take a hike since it has no jurisdiction over Americans or their allies ie Israel. Is this the message President Obama wants to deliver to Americans does he want Americans to believe that because of 9/11 anything goes except for Water-Boarding. So the abuses at Abu Ghraib 1, were the result of a few bad apples . 2. It wasn't all that bad comparable to a fraternity hazing 3. the detainees deserved it anyway so what's the beef.
But when it comes to Conservatives such as O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity etc. what they appear to really want is revenge and for American soldiers to show those they capture who's in control and to get a little payback. That to them is just fine. To these people talk about human rights and such is just a lot of liberal hogwash .
As I have said before if the US administration and its various departments do not make it clear that these acts are offensive and are in fact criminal then the rest of the world needs to find ways to show their disagreement with America . 1. Investigations and criminal charges should be laid by the Criminal Court or other legal bodies or the cases could be taken on by individual countries 2. If nothing is done then the US should be treated as a Rogue Nation. In part this means I believe censuring the US and removing it from the Security Council or simply removing its right to veto until the issue is cleared up 3. No country should enter into any formal agreement with the US because it does not recognize International Laws or Agreements and only abide by them when it suits America's interests and agenda.
Tammy Bruce claims that any talk about investigations or indictments is just Partisan politics but it is not for it is in fact a matter of truth and justice. But maybe when it comes to foreign affairs and such Americans are not interested in silly quaint ideas such as truth and justice.
Tammy Bruce Smacks the Far Left Loons That Still Seek War Crimes Trial
O'Reilly Jan. 27, 2009
Keith Olbermann spoke too soon
they're back with a vengeance out to undermine Obama's administration and stir up their base. Their base were those angry mobs at Sarah Palin McCain rallies. Fearful of a communist / socialist black take over of America.
President Obama = Goodbye to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly
Here's some BS by Newsweek Reporter John Barry with Cenk Uygur discussing Barry's article in which he discourages Obama from holding investigations of alleged criminal actions of the Bush Regime. But it appears that Barry just wants to defend and protect former president Bush. The Rule Of Law is meaningless to this reporter.And of course he doesn't bother to mention International Laws that have been broken by President Bush and his administration. Well he says its all complicated and I guess the average person including Cenk or Olbermann or Rachel Maddow etc. don't understand these complicated issues. Is he afraid to question the status quo or the powers to be. What he is saying it appears is that if a president can get something written into law or get a legal opinion which agrees with his own stated views then he can do whatever he wants. This is the point at which notions of law making and something being legal comes up against notions of justice. But Justice is a concept American politicians and pundits like to toss around but they don't really believe in justice as such. As long as you have brilliant legal minds at your disposal as President you can basically do whatever you want- kill, kidnap, torture etc. just don't have sex in the halls of the White House with someone who is not your spouse. Americans are more concerned with an unfaithful president who is unfaithful to his spouse than a president who is unfaithful to the American people or the Congress and Senate or to the UN and the rest of the world this is essentially America's FU to the rest of the world. They tell other countries they must play by certain rules but that America does not or those whom she has as allies.
Because Congress and the Justice department were involved in the conspiracy to commit criminal acts it is therefore somehow wrong to go after those who lied or misled other or reassured them that what the executive was doing was completely legal. So any act is permissible as lng as those in authority say that it is- and to Hell with pieces of paper like the US constitution and the US Bill of Rightss or International Laws or agreements such as the Geneva Conventions -the Geneva Conventions are merely guidelines or suggestions and can be ignored by any nation without fear of any repercussions including indictments or trials or even a tongue lashing from La Hague or the UN.
What I find difficult to fathom is how a president could lie to the Congress and the american people to lead them into an unnecessary war and for this there are no repurcussions.
Newsweek Reporter Says Bush Should Not be Prosecuted Jan. 26, 2009
Cenk debates John Barry of Newsweek. Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com.
"A Long-Lived Privilege?Bush lawyer directs Rove not to talk to Congress—once again"
By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 29, 2009
Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration.
On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fieldingsent a letter (.pdf) to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove - even after he leaves office.
And as this next article argues the Republicans and their supporters are still acting as if they were the ones in power or at least that they have as much power and therefore say in what President Obama is permitted to do. His call for bipartisanship and co-operation is to them just a sign of Obama's Administrations weakness.
Republicans in the House Are Behaving Like the Collapse of Bush's Policies Never Happened by Mitchell Bard,Huffington Post, Jan. 29, 2009
Look, I had no illusions that everything would change the minute Barack Obama took the oath of office, and that the Republicans would immediately burn their Ronald Reagan pictures and pledge allegiance to Obama. But I did think that Obama's solid victory in November, if nothing else, would make it clear that the bankrupt (literally) policies of the last eight years would no longer be seriously considered as a solution. I certainly knew that the Republicans would try to claw their way back to power, but I never imagined they would pull a Groundhog Day, acting as if the absolute meltdown of the last eight years hadn't happened. After all, by electing Obama, the American people pretty directly rejected the failed ways of doing business.
Of the myriad problems George W. Bush and his enablers in Congress left on Obama's desk, the most pressing is perceived to be the economy. So Obama's first major legislative initiative was the stimulus package. Under the market-cures-all philosophy of the last administration (and, in fairness, every administration going back to Ronald Reagan), the financial system collapsed as the greed and irresponsibility of institutions finally reached a tipping point. ..
...And despite all of this information, not one single Republican member of the House voted for the stimulus bill yesterday. (It still passed, 244-188, with 11 Democrats joining the 177 Republicans in opposing the bill.) Not one. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Nil. None. There wasn't one Republican in the whole House of Representatives who could see his or her way clear to support legislation to help our tanking economy, even if they thought the bill wasn't perfect. And what was the primary objection of the Republicans, based on the GOP's suggested alternative bill (that was voted down by the House)? They wanted more tax cuts.
Seriously? More freakin' tax cuts? What's next? Are they going to be asking for less regulations on Wall Street? Another invasion of Iraq? Were they not watching what happened the last eight years (and, more importantly, what the American people voted for in November)?
...The bottom line is that this country is in a very dark place right now, and the reason we're there is not a mystery. It is, in large part, the direct result of a set of policies advocated and carried out by the Bush administration. Those policies, including tax cuts for the rich and the facilitation of movement of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class, have failed. While Republicans are free to oppose President Obama's solutions to this mess if they think they have better ideas, merely advocating the old failed policies should not be tolerated.
also see:
Grey,Stephen: The True Story of The CIA Torture Program, Pub. 2006
Hersh, Seymour: CHAIN OF COMMAND: THE ROAD FROM 9/11 TO ABU GHRAIB, pub. 2004
Tony Lagouranis & Allen Mikaelian :Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq pub. 2007
and so it goes,
GORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment