PDA

View Full Version : Holder: No Prosecution For "Torture"



red states rule
01-28-2009, 01:11 PM
Another huge disappointment for the left.

Chris Matthews may have lost that tingle right about now


EXCLUSIVE: Holder assures GOP on torture prosecution

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

President Obama's choice to run the Justice Department has assured senior Republican senators that he won't prosecute CIA officers or political appointees who were involved in the Bush administration's policy of "enhanced interrogations."

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 to favorably recommend Holder for the post. He is likely to be confirmed by the Senate soon.

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

He added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/28/exclusive-holder-assures-gop-torture-prosecution/

bullypulpit
02-02-2009, 10:14 AM
Another huge disappointment for the left.

Chris Matthews may have lost that tingle right about now


EXCLUSIVE: Holder assures GOP on torture prosecution

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

President Obama's choice to run the Justice Department has assured senior Republican senators that he won't prosecute CIA officers or political appointees who were involved in the Bush administration's policy of "enhanced interrogations."

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 to favorably recommend Holder for the post. He is likely to be confirmed by the Senate soon.

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

He added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/28/exclusive-holder-assures-gop-torture-prosecution/

Holder made no such promise, an aide said, pointing to Holder's written response to Senator John Kyl:

<blockquote>Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts, and no one is above the law. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions" authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.</blockquote>

Unfortunately, the "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions", qualification hearkens back to the Nuremberg defense, "I was only following orders...". The fact of the matter is that Holder and his Justice Department have no choice in the matter. They have to follow the evidence, regardless of where, or to whom, it leads. That's how the legal system is supposed to work, and if Obama and Holder choose to do otherwise, they will be complicit in the Bush administrations crimes.

red states rule
02-03-2009, 07:29 AM
Holder made no such promise, an aide said, pointing to Holder's written response to Senator John Kyl:

<blockquote>Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts, and no one is above the law. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions" authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.</blockquote>

Unfortunately, the "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions", qualification hearkens back to the Nuremberg defense, "I was only following orders...". The fact of the matter is that Holder and his Justice Department have no choice in the matter. They have to follow the evidence, regardless of where, or to whom, it leads. That's how the legal system is supposed to work, and if Obama and Holder choose to do otherwise, they will be complicit in the Bush administrations crimes.


So Holder lied when he made the promise

I hope you guys do waste time and money going after Pres Bush and others. This will be Obama's "Hillary Care"

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 07:45 AM
I personally would not be supportive of a political witch hunt, but if laws were broken, I would not object to prosecuting those who broke them.

bullypulpit
02-03-2009, 08:46 AM
So Holder lied when he made the promise

I hope you guys do waste time and money going after Pres Bush and others. This will be Obama's "Hillary Care"

No, Bond lied about his having made such a promise...<a href=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/holder-aide-we-made-no-special-promises-to-bond.php>Holder Aide: We Made No Special Promises to Bond</a>

And, unlike the Republicans with Whitewater, evidence abounds of Bush administration wrongdoing, including their own televised admissions.

red states rule
02-03-2009, 08:50 AM
No, Bond lied about his having made such a promise...<a href=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/holder-aide-we-made-no-special-promises-to-bond.php>Holder Aide: We Made No Special Promises to Bond</a>

And, unlike the Republicans with Whitewater, evidence abounds of Bush administration wrongdoing, including their own televised admissions.

Oh please go into witchhunt mode BP. Like the mega pork bill, go for the throat

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 08:54 AM
I dunno...watching a few former Bush administration heavyweights being frog marched to prison for their role in torturing people might very well be good for the American soul.

red states rule
02-03-2009, 08:55 AM
I dunno...watching a few former Bush administration heavyweights being frog marched to prison for their role in torturing people might very well be good for the American soul.

Yes liberal thought process is something else

Release the terrorists, but lock up the former President and members of his staff

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:27 AM
Yes liberal thought process is something else

Release the terrorists, but lock up the former President and members of his staff

I want to defeat our enemies and hold Americans to the rule of law. Don't YOU? Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:31 AM
No, you want to surrender and appease the terrorists - while smear your own country

I do not support surrender or appeasement, and nothing Obama has done will do either of those things. WHy do you avoid answering simple questions?

Do you want the president of the united states to support and defend the entire constitution or not?

red states rule
02-03-2009, 09:31 AM
I want to defeat our enemies and hold Americans to the rule of law. Don't YOU? Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

No, you want to surrender and appease the terrorists - while smear your own country

red states rule
02-03-2009, 09:38 AM
I do not support surrender or appeasement, and nothing Obama has done will do either of those things. WHy do you avoid answering simple questions?

Do you want the president of the united states to support and defend the entire constitution or not?


Oh my, the libs had a fit when pres Bush was doing this


Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool
The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.

Reporting from Washington -- The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.

The European Parliament condemned renditions as "an illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a Boeing Co. subsidiary accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.

But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.

The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the United States is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:43 AM
can't quite get the courage up to just answer that simple question, can you?

ah well.

red states rule
02-03-2009, 09:48 AM
can't quite get the courage up to just answer that simple question, can you?

ah well.

I did

You want to free the terrorists from GITMO, but toss Pres Bush in s jail cell

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 01:54 PM
I did

You want to free the terrorists from GITMO, but toss Pres Bush in s jail cell

no. you didn't. here: try again...

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

red states rule
02-03-2009, 02:00 PM
no. you didn't. here: try again...

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

I think I have sumed up your position perfectly

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 02:01 PM
I think I have sumed up your position perfectly


and avoided answering the simple question yet again.

ho hum.

keep running.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 02:12 PM
Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

It seems like such a cut and dried question. I would think that EVERY American would want their president to uphold and defend the constitution. Apparently, RSR not only does NOT want that from his president, but he feels so strongly that he hands out negative reputation comments to those who do. What a patriot you are!:lol:

Yurt
02-03-2009, 02:25 PM
and avoided answering the simple question yet again.

ho hum.

keep running.

....that reminds me of....

red states rule
02-03-2009, 02:25 PM
but he feels so strongly that he hands out negative reputation comments to those who do. What a patriot you are!:lol:

...reminds me of someone as well......

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 02:30 PM
...reminds me of someone as well......

red...why can't you answer a simple question?

red states rule
02-03-2009, 02:34 PM
red...why can't you answer a simple question?

OK

It reminds me of Manfrommaine - i.e. Rev Virgil

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 02:44 PM
OK

It reminds me of Manfrommaine - i.e. Rev Virgil

I'm not that guy. Can you answer this question:

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

Yurt
02-03-2009, 02:53 PM
I'm not that guy. Can you answer this question:

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

you can't just lie and expect people to believe you

avatar4321
02-03-2009, 02:54 PM
There is a good reason for no prosecution for torture. There would actually have to be someone who was tortured before that happened.

avatar4321
02-03-2009, 02:57 PM
Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?


Yes. Do you? Are you going to ask President Obama to resign so that the rest of the world and our nation doesnt have to sit through 4 more years of torture?

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 02:58 PM
Yes. Do you?
Yes. I do want my president to uphold and defend the entire constitution. I wonder why some people on here cannot make the same statement.

Yurt
02-03-2009, 03:05 PM
Yes. I do want my president to uphold and defend the entire constitution. I wonder why some people on here cannot make the same statement.

what do you care what some people here say or don't say? its none of your business....

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 04:33 PM
what do you care what some people here say or don't say? its none of your business....


why do you ask me questions? My answers are none of your business!:lol:

Yurt
02-03-2009, 05:04 PM
why do you ask me questions? My answers are none of your business!:lol:

you can't just lie and expect people to believe you

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 07:02 PM
you can't just lie and expect people to believe you

one can't just chase ambulances and expect to put food on the table.

Yurt
02-03-2009, 07:06 PM
you can't just chase ambulances and expect to put food on the table.

:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 07:08 PM
:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

I changed the post from "you" to "one" in order to make the english meaning more correct. I wasn't referring to you individually.

And I happen to use the term "ambulance chaser" as many other people do, to refer to low grade attorneys who prey on accident victims.... bottom feeders of the legal profession... if the shoe fits, please feel free to wear it.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 07:09 PM
:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

gosh...are you referring to that previous poster that you claimed you were no longer referring to, LSofS?

red states rule
02-03-2009, 07:12 PM
:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

ANSWER:

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
I haven't taken one minute of time to find out which tiny office space you are renting in San Luis Opisbo to service your dozen or so clients that you have garnered by chasing ambulances. If I had, then I would be stalking you...but in fact, the reverse is true and you have, indeed stalked me, and passed my personal information along to your even creepier butt buddies. Like I said earlier, we both better hope he is not as crazy as I think he is.

Yurt
02-03-2009, 07:12 PM
gosh...are you referring to that previous poster that you claimed you were no longer referring to, LSofS?

what previous poster?

and why can't YOU answer my question....

red states rule
02-03-2009, 07:14 PM
what previous poster?

and why can't YOU answer my question....

He already has Yurt

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
I can only assume that you followed the ambulances to SF General. Get any clients?

I would have to imagine that there are more qualified attorneys, so you need to be the first on the scene, eh?

Yurt
02-03-2009, 07:15 PM
I changed the post from "you" to "one" in order to make the english meaning more correct. I wasn't referring to you individually.

And I happen to use the term "ambulance chaser" as many other people do, to refer to low grade attorneys who prey on accident victims.... bottom feeders of the legal profession... if the shoe fits, please feel free to wear it.

liar, your words convict you, you even accused me in another thread of doing correspondence law school....you were in fact talking directly to me

nice try...

do you care to stop the insult and debate or are you going to continue your obsession with my legal career and education?

avatar4321
02-03-2009, 07:44 PM
Yes. I do want my president to uphold and defend the entire constitution. I wonder why some people on here cannot make the same statement.

Of course you do, thats why you vote for the guys that hate free speech, free relgion, the right to bear arms, states rights, free press, to name a few.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:17 PM
do you care to stop the insult and debate or are you going to continue your obsession with my legal career and education?
surprise me by going first, counselor.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:23 PM
Of course you do, thats why you vote for the guys that hate free speech, free relgion, the right to bear arms, states rights, free press, to name a few. I don't vote for anyone who does not pledge to support and defend the constitution. there are folks here who clearly do not care if the president (as long as he is a republican president) pisses on entire sections of that document as long as it suits their partisan political agenda.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:25 PM
He already has Yurt

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
I can only assume that you followed the ambulances to SF General. Get any clients?

I would have to imagine that there are more qualified attorneys, so you need to be the first on the scene, eh?


those aren't my words.

Yurt
02-03-2009, 09:29 PM
surprise me by going first, counselor.

wuss....no you first...no you first, i said first, no you started it..

Yurt
02-03-2009, 09:30 PM
I don't vote for anyone who does not pledge to support and defend the constitution. there are folks here who clearly do not care if the president (as long as he is a republican president) pisses on entire sections of that document as long as it suits their partisan political agenda.

nobody i know pisses on the constitution, clearly you are mistaken, especially for a new member

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:33 PM
nobody i know pisses on the constitution, clearly you are mistaken, especially for a new member

Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 09:49 PM
** crickets chirping **

why am I not surprised?

Yurt
02-03-2009, 10:00 PM
wow a whole 16 minutes and you're pissing you're pants with anticipation

i made my statement, deal with it.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 10:04 PM
wow a whole 16 minutes and you're pissing you're pants with anticipation

i made my statement, deal with it.

why can't you answer a simple question?

coward

Yurt
02-03-2009, 10:06 PM
why can't you answer a simple question?

coward

why can't you shut up and stop the insults

especially the exact same insults as a former member....it is entirely YOUR fault that people think you are a former member, you use the same exact words and insults.

i made a statement, i am not required to answer your questions. got it, good.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 10:08 PM
why can't you shut up and stop the insults

especially the exact same insults as a former member....it is entirely YOUR fault that people think you are a former member, you use the same exact words and insults.

i made a statement, i am not required to answer your questions. got it, good.

why can't you answer a simple question?

Of course you are not REQUIRED to, but it seems odd that you would be unable to.

Yurt
02-03-2009, 10:14 PM
why can't you answer a simple question?

Of course you are not REQUIRED to, but it seems odd that you would be unable to.

has nothing to do with ability...

as i said, i made my statement, deal with it. got it, good.

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 10:16 PM
has nothing to do with ability...

as i said, i made my statement, deal with it. got it, good.

Why can't you answer a simple question?


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

Or, in other words, do you believe in the Constitution of the United States or don't you?

manu1959
02-03-2009, 10:18 PM
Why can't you answer a simple question?


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

Or, in other words, do you believe in the Constitution of the United States or don't you?

virgil.....is that you.....how you been.....

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 10:20 PM
virgil.....is that you.....how you been.....

it's not me...but if this fellow virgil believed in the constitution, then he must not be such a bad guy.

Yurt
02-03-2009, 10:30 PM
Why can't you answer a simple question?


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

Or, in other words, do you believe in the Constitution of the United States or don't you?

i do and have answered your questions...

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 10:32 PM
i do and have answered your questions...

please direct me to the post where you answered this question:


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

I must have missed it

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 10:46 PM
** crickets chirping **

:lol:

Yurt
02-03-2009, 10:49 PM
wow, this time it only took 14 minutes for you to pee yourself

calm down

moderate democrat
02-03-2009, 10:51 PM
wow, this time it only took 14 minutes for you to pee yourself

calm down

I am very calm...why can't you answer the question?

Psychoblues
02-23-2009, 05:56 AM
See what I mean about idiots?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

red states rule
02-23-2009, 09:41 AM
What libs really can't stand


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/147602.bmp