Democrats seek criminal probe of Bush 'abuses'

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

WASHINGTON – The incoming Obama administration should launch a criminal investigation of Bush administration officials to see whether they broke the law in the name of national security, a House Democratic report said Tuesday. President-elect Barack Obama has been more cautious on the issue and has not endorsed such a recommendation.

Along with the criminal probe, the report called for a Sept. 11-style commission with subpoena power, to gather facts and make recommendations on preventing misuse of power, according to the report by the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee.

The report covers Bush administration policies that Democrats have protested for some time. Among them: interrogation of foreign detainees, warrantless wiretaps, retribution against critics, manipulation of intelligence and political dismissals of U.S. attorneys.

The White House was asked for comment on the report Tuesday, but did not immediately respond.

However, in an interview this month with The Associated Press, Vice President ####### Cheney said, "I can't speak for everybody in the administration, but my view would be that the people who carried out that program — intelligence surveillance program, the enhanced interrogation program, with respect to al Qaeda captives — in fact were authorized to do what they did ... ."

Cheney said legal opinions supported the officials.

"And I believe they followed those legal opinions and I don't have any reason to believe that they did anything wrong or inappropriate," the vice president said.

Obama said last week in a television interview, "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

Obama said intelligence officials were "extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."

Obama said he has not made a final decision about a Sept. 11-type commission.

The criminal probe may need a special prosecutor named by the attorney general, the report said.

An alternative would be expansion of an existing investigation into the CIA's alleged destruction of a tape or tapes showing harsh interrogation methods against a prisoner.

The criminal investigation would include issues apart from national security, such as whether laws were violated in the politically inspired firing of U.S. attorneys.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said his staff has met with the Obama transition officials on the report. The president-elect's transition team has not endorsed it.

The congressionally appointed commission should have subpoena power, the report said. It suggested the new president order "full cooperation by all present and past federal employees with requests for information."

Conyers already has introduced legislation to form the commission.

link

[NickD 203]

My congressman Obey treid to start this, but told me that Nancy blocked him. What a mess that place is after I listened to him spill on, you would think a new congressman that you send to DC is their to represent you, but all he/she can do is run to get coffee for the old guys.

Reading the civics test with my wife when applying for USC was pure fiction, but certainly have some refreshing thoughts as how this country is suppose to be. And that balance of power is BS when a president only needs a handful of senators and congressman to control both those houses, and this includes selecting members of the supreme court and controlling a handful of people in congress to elect them. We are not a republic but a dictatorship.

Only thing that can be done if the vast majority of USC would object, but too busy trying to earn an income and watching the Super bowl.

[alienlovechild 75]

And that balance of power is BS when a president only needs a handful of senators and congressman to control both those houses, and this includes selecting members of the supreme court and controlling a handful of people in congress to elect them. We are not a republic but a dictatorship.

I wouldn't say the government works as is advertised but it's hardly a dictatorship. In case you missed the news, there was an election and the opposition party won. You could say there is an oligarchy of sorts where people money who have the money can afford to run to office and there is low turnover in Congress but it does happen.

Only thing that can be done if the vast majority of USC would object, but too busy trying to earn an income and watching the Super bowl.

Most people want to live their lives and representative democracy means we vote for someone else to run the government for us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It won't happen. That's not to say that it shouldn't happen.

But I suspect we'll realised 20-30 odd years down the line when documents are declassified and we get more of an insight into the Bush administration's decision making processes.

[Peikko 1,575]

And that balance of power is BS when a president only needs a handful of senators and congressman to control both those houses, and this includes selecting members of the supreme court and controlling a handful of people in congress to elect them. We are not a republic but a dictatorship.

I wouldn't say the government works as is advertised but it's hardly a dictatorship. In case you missed the news, there was an election and the opposition party won. You could say there is an oligarchy of sorts where people money who have the money can afford to run to office and there is low turnover in Congress but it does happen.

Only thing that can be done if the vast majority of USC would object, but too busy trying to earn an income and watching the Super bowl.

Most people want to live their lives and representative democracy means we vote for someone else to run the government for us.

However, it was never the intent of those who created these institutions that 'the people' should turn up, vote then forget about what the elected are doing for the next X years. To hold the elected accountable is the responsibility of the electorate.

[alienlovechild 75]

And that balance of power is BS when a president only needs a handful of senators and congressman to control both those houses, and this includes selecting members of the supreme court and controlling a handful of people in congress to elect them. We are not a republic but a dictatorship.

I wouldn't say the government works as is advertised but it's hardly a dictatorship. In case you missed the news, there was an election and the opposition party won. You could say there is an oligarchy of sorts where people money who have the money can afford to run to office and there is low turnover in Congress but it does happen.

Only thing that can be done if the vast majority of USC would object, but too busy trying to earn an income and watching the Super bowl.

Most people want to live their lives and representative democracy means we vote for someone else to run the government for us.

However, it was never the intent of those who created these institutions that 'the people' should turn up, vote then forget about what the elected are doing for the next X years. To hold the elected accountable is the responsibility of the electorate.

No, that's exactly what was intended as townhall democracies can't work at the state and national levels. You can't vote on legislation as citizens so can't do much beyond writing nasty e-mails to your representative. There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting citizens from telling the government off. In fact, freedom of speech, assembly and the right of petition was there in 1787. The officials held responsible during the next election.

[Peikko 1,575]

You do know what 'holding accountable' means, right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hunter S. Thompson on Nixon (but could apply equally to GWB)

What we are looking at on all our TV sets is a man who finally, after 24 years of frenzied effort, became the President of the United States with a personal salary of $200,000 a year and an unlimited expense account including a fleet of private helicopters, jetliners, armored cars, personal mansions and estates on both coasts and control over a budget beyond the wildest dream of King Midas . . . and all the dumb ####### can show us, after five years of total freedom to do anything he wants with all this power, is a shattered national economy, disastrous defeat in a war we could have ended four years ago on far better terms than he finally came around to, and a hand-picked personal staff put together through five years of screening, whose collective criminal record will blow the minds of high-school American History students for the next 100 years.

[alienlovechild 75]

You do know what 'holding accountable' means, right?

I'd explain it you again but it's pretty clear you don't understand what accountability means in this context. Since you failed to define it or the "village" on another thread, I'll break down for you. Elections are the conventional means where our elected representatives are held accountable by the voting public for their voting record or conduct in office. They could be held accountable for criminal conduct before an election and removed that way.

Feel to embellish on the concept if you think it's inadequate. This your cue to get indignate that your character is being questioned somehow and you're too smart to answer such stupid and bigoted, racist, homophobic and anti-human questions from right-wing nuts. Then I get the "Look it up on the Internet because I'm too busy living my wonderful life to waste on such petty thoughts".

[Peikko 1,575]

I love it when you think you 'know' other posters so well but best of all I love the way you feel the need to post how well you know other posters in order to establish your intelligence and credibility. What fun you are

[alienlovechild 75]

I love it when you think you 'know' other posters so well but best of all I love the way you feel the need to post how well you know other posters in order to establish your intelligence and credibility. What fun you are

Thanks for explaining accountability and all those other ideas. I'm not learning much from you on any topic aside from, of course, your need to appear mysterious. It's working and I'm still mystified.

[Peikko 1,575]

At the risk of being boring, because I have said it before, I am not your teacher. I don't view message boards as particularly useful in terms of educational tools. They can be interesting and sometimes entertaining, but that's hardly the same.

I don't have 'needs' least of all to be mysterious, I find that idea suitably entertaining and absurd. Thanks alien.

[NickD 203]

At the risk of being boring, because I have said it before, I am not your teacher. I don't view message boards as particularly useful in terms of educational tools. They can be interesting and sometimes entertaining, but that's hardly the same.

I don't have 'needs' least of all to be mysterious, I find that idea suitably entertaining and absurd. Thanks alien.

Ha, my impression of accountability is where a political leader is investigated and judged by his peers he/she is in a position to blackmail because of some naughty things they have done. Either gets pardoned, or has fall guys to take the blame. They don't mind, spend a short time in jail, write a book and appear on the Tonight show and earn a lot of money. Wonder if Obama will pardon Bush just on general principles, not that Bush did anything wrong, but just so we can move on. If he does, not permitted to take a breathe between saying the oath and giving the pardon.

Ha, listened to experts praise Ford for his wisdom in pardoning Nixon without taking a breathe, so this country can forget and move on.

Moving on is the big thing.

[mendeleev 68]

You do know what 'holding accountable' means, right?

I'd explain it you again but it's pretty clear you don't understand what accountability means in this context. Since you failed to define it or the "village" on another thread, I'll break down for you. Elections are the conventional means where our elected representatives are held accountable by the voting public for their voting record or conduct in office. They could be held accountable for criminal conduct before an election and removed that way.

Feel to embellish on the concept if you think it's inadequate. This your cue to get indignate that your character is being questioned somehow and you're too smart to answer such stupid and bigoted, racist, homophobic and anti-human questions from right-wing nuts. Then I get the "Look it up on the Internet because I'm too busy living my wonderful life to waste on such petty thoughts".

AND, if officials, elected or appointed, broke laws (such as those concerning torture, commission of war crimes, and the like) then those reprehensible miscreants should not only fear but experience criminal prosecution.

[nowhereman 1]

Clinton was impeached for getting a BJ & lying about it & the right wing were giving each other high fives when it happened, but now that Bush & his cronies might have to answer for what they have done suddenly the same right wingers are up in arms about it. I'm surprised that one of the right wingers here hasn't blamed those awful liberals for this... apparently they are to blame for everything.

Bush is definitely guilty of being a horrible President... whether he or his cronies are legally responsible for their actions remains to be seen. Personally I would like to see the truth come out, but with all of the partisanship and animosity created over the past 8 years between the republicans & democrats it would be extremely difficult to get justice (i.e. the alleged transgressions will get swept under the rug or their will be a witch hunt).