dagblog - Comments for "When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All"

A five-star post, oleeb.

two_cents — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:12:17 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

A five-star post, oleeb. You've given my own thoughts perfect expression. Heartfelt thanks.

For sure.

thepeoplechoose — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 02:38:39 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

For sure.

I bet we can get half of the

Jason Everett Miller — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:29:27 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

I bet we can get half of the country's 200 million voters to start thinking and acting a certain way and not just the small percentage of political junkies represented at TPM. I'm not giving up and suspect the number of people who are in the same place will continue to grow exponentially until real change becomes inevitable. I hope we are seeing Obama's learning curve in progress and not the final triumph of a corrupt system.

I know. But I'm not giving

matyra — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:15:03 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

I know. But I'm not giving up yet. Dammit, why is it always so much work to get the right thing done (and don't tell me 'it's because there are 300 million definitions of the 'right thing' in our country...')

I still don't think it's so

Forrest — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:21:17 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

I still don't think it's so cut and dry as "basic law enforcement". Yes, laws were broken. Personally I think they should all go to prison, assuming they are actually found guilty. But I don't think the decision is all that simple.

Maybe I misspoke when I said that it for sure was "a good faith effort.", because personally I'm not convinced it was. Let me say it a different way. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it *wasn't* a good faith effort?

I just think there's a lot more to the decision than putting them on trial and letting things fall where they may.

As for this thought:

"Such retaliation would only work anyway if the predecessor HAD been violating laws."

You're also assuming that the new administration is altruistic and follows the letter of the law. What happens if the new administration is as corrupt as the Bush administration? Then they could FIND violations, even if nothing illegal actually took place. You don't need to be convicted for your life and legacy to be ruined. Look at all the crap that Obama appointees are having to put up with, in the name of 'thorough vetting' by Republicans. And with the way information flows across the web and across the world these days, more than ever you're guilty until proven unfit for office.

Look at it this way. Bush 43 spent eight years doing his absolute best to expand the power of the executive. They overstepped their bounds by tremendous amounts and set many precedents. Why do you think republicans are so pissed off over having lost the White House? They went to all that trouble to gain power just to hand the keys over to the Democrats. It's like sharpening a knife just to hand it to your worst enemy.

I DO think it's wrong to just decide that *everyone* involved is free of prosecution. I think it needs to be handled a lot more carefully than blindly issuing indictments of the highest ranking government officials.

What good will prosecuting them do? The damage, both to our nation's reputation and to the people involved, is already done. I doubt prosecuting them will restore that reputation. I think the best we can do is make things transparent so that it doesn't happen again. Make it clear that the decision to torture is *never* justified, and if your superior tells you to do it, refuse or you WILL be prosecuted, along with your superior and so on, all the way up the chain.

As for the notion of allowing the international community conduct trials...not in this or any other lifetime. That would require the US to give up a bit of its sovereignty, and that's something we tend to expect other countries to do, not us.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Are you really surprised that we're not prosecuting Bush 43? Tell me you're not that idealistic.

Have to agree with this

Jason Everett Miller — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:02:18 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

Have to agree with this comment, except for the part about Obama needing impose radical solutions.

I think he actually needs to do the most common sense and conservative thing - uphold the law as agreed upon by the Constitution and international treaties. There is nothing radical about actually using the Constitution as the baseline for his duties and responsibilities.

The radical solution is the one he is putting forth as an answer to institutionalized torture and murder - that we should not worry about investigating those abuses as a way of moving forward. Only by exposing such things to the light of day can we assure ourselves they won't happen again.

Nothing could be more conservative, I think. It would be a very liberal stance at the same time. Barack is missing a huge opportunity to use this issue to force this country to move toward a more just and rational place.

hum henpecked

Bwakfat — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:57:30 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

hum

henpecked adjective
harassed by persistent nagging [syn: dominated]

BRILLIANT! We'll have a barnyard revolt, the chcikens will henpeck them, the horses will nag, the pigalitos will.... um, OH! and the puppies will bitch!

If you peoples won't do you're bit, I guess it'll be up to us assorted critters. Make NOISE!! Let your reps know.

NO TORTURE. NO QUIBBLING. NO CLEMANCY.

Are we men, or monsters?

(figuratively speaking...)

Well, if men are hen-pecked,

TheraP — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:50:14 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

Well, if men are hen-pecked, then I guess we do!

I noticed that as I wrote it - but let's go for it!

Hens have peckers?? :O

LisB — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:48:43 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

Hens have peckers??

True, but it certainly sets

Jason Everett Miller — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:46:16 +0000

In reply to When Presidents Obstruct Justice They Disgrace Us All

True, but it certainly sets the agenda and has the edict to pursue criminal activity via the Department of Justice independent of Congress or the Courts.

Neither of the latter have any more credibility than the presidency has had of late, so it really was Barack who I expected to set the tone and drive the conversation. Business as usual seems to be what he is saying, unless there is a longer play involved which may be leave the underlings alone in order to hold those who gave the orders accountable.

Too early to tell one way or the other, but the performance thus far seems to eschew common sense for political expediency.