Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 Grant immunity? Obama's making Bush criminals into heroes! 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,114
    link

    Bwahahahahaha, BDS is alive and well at DU. Conspiracy theories, delusions, redefining words to criminalize policy differences....it's all there.

    Oh, and they're mad at Obama because he didn't prosecute Bush et al.



    JackRiddler (21,928 posts)


    Grant immunity? Obama's making Bush criminals into heroes!

    Key words: Bush Regime, Obama response to Bush Regime crimes, John Yoo, Westfall precedent, curious argument that Obama has "not granted immunity" for criminal activity by Bush-era officials.



    In 2001, a regime came to power following a highly public electoral fraud. As this fraud was being challenged, an unconstitutional judicial fiat suspended the rule of law in determining the true results of the 2000 presidential election. The Court stepped in, stopped the process, and appointed the loser as the winner.

    After this seizure of the United States executive branch, the responsible cabal prepared and launched a long-planned war of aggression, employing a fabricated and fabulated pretext. This resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, and the destruction of more than one nation. The direct consequences remain with us today.

    Among many other constitutional violations, breaking of laws, obstructions, obfuscations, atrocities and war crimes, officials of the Bush Regime also ordered and oversaw the imprisonment without charges and in many cases the torture of an unspecified number of persons - dozens, hundreds, thousands - who were held at illegal and often secret sites in many countries around the world.

    In creating a framework against future prosecution, the main conspirators of the Bush regime circulated secret memoranda among themselves, deploying spurious legal arguments to justify their lawbreaking. In any serious criminal case against the cabal, the lawyers who issued these enabling memos would have been a prosecutor's first targets, because their role had been to provide legal cover for the entire criminal enterprise.

    In 2008, a successor administration was elected legitimately under the terms of the U.S. constitution. The winning candidate had issued promises that charges of wrongdoing by the outgoing government would be investigated.

    However, the personnel of the new government chose to ignore the overwhelming prima facie evidence of criminal conduct by their predecessors. The Obama team made a clear series of decisions not to investigate, not to prosecute, and not even to reveal the full extent of the Bush Regime's criminal activity. On the contrary, with regard to the national security and surveillance state, they oversaw an expansion of this activity and sought to render it retroactively legal.

    It should be noted that while the majority of Democratic voters had not (or only rarely) supported Bush Regime actions, indispensable collaboration was given at key points by Democratic Party leaders and politicians. In the most egregious example, one-half of the Democrats in the Senate - including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden - voted for the 2002 motion enabling the announced plans to invade Iraq. This granted invaluable political legitimacy to the subsequent war of aggression.

    When the Democrats regained control of the Congress on a wave of antiwar sentiment in 2006, their leadership promptly announced that impeachment was "off the table," in Nancy Pelosi's words, and accommodated the continuation of the Bush-initiated wars.

    In 2008, key Democrats including the presidential candidate, Senator Obama, voted for the FISA amendments granting retroactive immunity from prosecution and civil liability to phone companies that had participated in the illegal Bush eavesdropping program - in effect, ending any chance that Bush officials would be held accountable for their massive expansion of domestic spying.

    Now, starting in 2009, the new chief executive did not just fail to prosecute but morally exonerated the Bush-era perpetrators. Obama kept Bush's secretary of defense, Gates, in office for several years. He appointed the war criminal, Petraeus, to head the CIA. He bestowed medals on members of the Bush gang. Most recently, he trivialized torture as something "we" did to some "folks" out of understandable fear and patriotic over-reaction.

    At the beginning of the Obama administration's public and legal efforts to exculpate the Bush regime - and thus, effectively, to cover up its crimes before history - use was made of a legal device known as the Westfall exception, which provides the government with the option of giving legal representation to former employees who are accused in criminal or civil cases.

    Rather than bringing charges for legal misconduct against John Yoo - the former DOJ counsel who wrote memos to justify torture - the Obama government instead provided Yoo with a government lawyer when the latter was sued by one of the Bush Regime's many victims.

    The practice of issuing Westfall certifications is based on a judicial precedent, not on legislated law. The Obama administration could have chosen to declare Yoo's Westfall certification null and void, because his actions had involved the witting commission of crimes - in fact, constitutional violations.

    As I wrote here years ago:

    Yoo's legal opinions served as the basis for clearing illegal actions by the executive. If your lawyer advises you that you may commit an illegal act because in his opinion it is actually legal, he makes himself liable to prosecution, and you are still subject to prosecution for your crime. Both of you may face an additional conspiracy charge for your collusion in justifying that crime.

    The difficulty is in demonstrating any one individual’s witting intent, although as a group they obviously set out to break the law and then did so. (This is why lawmakers invented RICO for going after organized criminal activity in which a refined division of labor and code of silence helps to shield individual conspirators.)

    This is how it works: Yoo can issue a secret opinion that Cheney has the right to shoot you in the face. Gonzalez (or Ashcroft) then secretly but officially certifies that Yoo issued this opinion as part of his official duties at OLC. (This may later entitle Yoo to government defense under a precedent known as Westfall). Now Cheney can face-shoot you. Everyone's in the clear. Except you. As the face-shot victim, when you sue for damages (like Padilla has sued Yoo), Yoo's hope is that all future executive branches will not join the suit, but on the contrary must represent him in court thanks to his "Westfall certification." The Obama Justice Department, which should be hauling Yoo (and the rest) off in shackles, has in fact provided representation for Yoo. Cheney theoretically will get representation also, if his turn comes, thanks to Yoo's legal malpractice in issuing the memo that made a secret exception to the laws against face-shooting. Is Gonzalez in the clear? I'm sure somebody in the round-robin of preemptive exoneration issued a memo that covered his ass, too.


    The latest argument therefore that the Obama administration has "not granted Bush immunity" is an example of completely irrelevant, legalistic hair-splitting. A cheap diversion. The administration paid for a lawyer to defend Yoo. Under these circumstances, what does it even mean to "grant immunity"?

    Clearly, the Obama position is that nothing the Bush organization did even rises to the level of an offense actionable enough to bring immunity up as an option. To grant immunity would admit that something wrong may have been done. Obama administration officials instead chose to justify, to heroize, to valorize, and to follow in the footsteps of their criminal predecessors on many issues, including mass domestic surveillance and secret and unsanctioned military actions around the world.


    Maybe....Obama KNOWS that if he prosecutes the Bush Administration for so called "war crimes" that are made up out of whole cloth.......the DUmmies have decided it's wrong so therefore it is a "war crime" and an "illegal war"....that Republicans can find similar things about him, or can redefine things to be "illegal" and "wrong" and prosecute him and his administration.

    sabrina 1 (46,057 posts)

    3. I think we were completely naive throughout the Bush administration regarding

    our belief that no one is above the law. People actually believed that and worked hard to make sure the criminals would one day be brought to justice.

    That, looking back, was so incredibly naive. I do remember a few people telling us that but we usually thought of them as people who were simply trying to diminish the crimes or of some other ulterior motive. I wish I could apologize to them now. THEY were right, we were wrong.
    Hmmmm...talking about "above the law" Obama......

    enough (7,831 posts)

    9. We were right about Bush and wrong about Obama.

    I'm pretty damn old, and I can't remember ever having been as wrong about a politician as I was about Barack Obama. One of the results is that I have never been as pessimistic about electoral politics as a tool for change as I am now, several years into the Obama administration.
    loyalsister (7,820 posts)

    28. would republicans have been successful

    in suing a sitting president and turning his efforts to do his job into civil\criminal offenses if those things had been prosecuted? I think definitely.
    precedent...liberals always think it won't come back to bite them in the butt

    Baitball Blogger (17,804 posts)

    5. Very interesting tie selection.

    The two Dems wore red. The two Repubs wore blue. And Obama wore blue, but posed with the Bushies.

    I hope that when his presidency is over that he will be honest about how he felt during these moments. To hell with decorum.
    Don't worry, Obama has none.... "if they bring a knife, we bring a gun", "get in their face", calling out the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address, inviting Romney to a speech and then putting him down because of the budget he proposed, leaving Netanyahu in the White House alone while he went to eat supper, because he was mad at him, putting down FOX news and Rush Limbaugh (not only no decorum, but thin skinned as well)

    The list could go on and on.

    Tierra_y_Libertad (41,434 posts)

    30. The reason that they aren't being prosecuted is that too many Democrats signed off on the crimes.

    Having your own people complicit in the crimes is definitely a brake on prosecuting the other people.
    Rex (45,988 posts)

    35. It is simple, we live in a land where laws only apply to certain groups of people.

    If you are a part of the BFEE, you are above the law...that has clearly been demonstrated from the early days of the S&L scandals. We only respect the law if it applies to normal citizens. If the PTB start an illegal war, then they are immune from prosecution in the United States.

    We made that clear to the world.
    Octafish (41,012 posts)

    39. Pete Brewton: The Mafia, CIA & George Bush

    Pete Brewton's book, “The Mafia, CIA & George Bush,” is a must-own for those interested in the workings of the Bush Organized Crime Family. Written by a former Houston Post reporter, the book documents, literally, the way the Mafia, the CIA and those connected and related to George Poppy Bush -- and to the late Lloyd Bentsen -- looted more than 1,000 of the nation’s Savings and Loans institutions — and pretty much got away with it, scot-free.

    snip
    colsohlibgal (1,453 posts) 56. The Prisons should be full of Bush/Cheney Etc.

    It's like they got off scot free after getting rich by lying us into a war after the still questionable to a lot of us 9/11. Oh and all after not even really having been elected in the first place.

    Obama and his team aren't the only ones culpable for letting justice slide. Also to blame is the figurative coma way too many citizens seem to be in.
    DU must be known as THE place for kooks to congregate. Some are OK, but they generally are banned for daring to have an original thought, leave on their own or are run out.
    Last edited by Carol; 09-01-2014 at 12:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Festivus Moderator ralph wiggum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Springfield, USA
    Posts
    16,873
    Love how "baitball blogger" is obsessed with the tie selection. Like Obama wearing that tan suit, who the hell cares?
    Voted hottest "chick" at CU - My hotness transcends gender
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sunny,FL
    Posts
    43,417



    BDS!!!!
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,416
    enough (7,831 posts)

    9. We were right about Bush and wrong about Obama.

    I'm pretty damn old, and I can't remember ever having been as wrong about a politician as I was about Barack Obama. One of the results is that I have never been as pessimistic about electoral politics as a tool for change as I am now, several years into the Obama administration.

    Jury alert will be around the corner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Do not disobey da $kinner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member 98ZJUSMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    310
    enough (7,831 posts)

    9. We were right about Bush and wrong about Obama.

    I'm pretty damn old, and I can't remember ever having been as wrong about a politician as I was about Barack Obama. One of the results is that I have never been as pessimistic about electoral politics Good. Pass it around! as a tool for change as I am now, several years into the Obama administration.
    Because you're stupid. Simple as that.
    Life is hard (D)Ummies. It's even harder when you're stupid.
    -paraphasing John Wayne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,416
    Quote Originally Posted by 98ZJUSMC View Post
    Because you're stupid. Simple as that.




    Most people get wiser with age, this DUer proves that to be true!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    17,416
    Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaRepub View Post



    BDS!!!!
    Such idiots.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •