NYT Calls For Investigation Of Bush-Era Abuses

New York Times:

We've known for years that the Bush administration ignored and broke the law repeatedly in the name of national security. It is now clear that many of those programs could have been conducted just as easily within the law perhaps more effectively and certainly with far less damage to the justice system and to Americans' faith in their government.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[rich misty]

http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

I took time to write them both. I printed the email to the USDoJ and mailed it to Holder's office, and copied the text into the White House contact form.

[FROG1]

boy, that'll spur them into action - they'll be running down the halls yelling - "letter from misty!! - letter from misty!! - we have to do something!!!"

[Grunty1]

Send them a letter Frog. They need a good laugh.

[rich misty]

Why do Republicans hate Americans and Democracy? Why do they attack Americans?

Their behavior leads me to believe that the more power they have, the more Americans they deliberately attempt to hurt, and this concerns me.

[washlib]

Reichwingers hate America because of what we are, a melting pot of race, culture, orientation, and religion. They hate that we cannot be controlled easily, so they continue to bait us in all of these issues, pitting us against each other.

Reichwingers only love what they can control and lord over. Everything else they fight to their dying breath.

[FROG1]

like I said, it's just who we are

[gbrooks]

Lots of neocons here commenting, trying to divide support for investigations.

One says that the NYT article is assuming guilt, which I disagree with because the instances they quote are factual.

One says that there will be Democrats who will be shown to be complicit--so you better not investigate! To which I say: BS, any Dem that is guilty/complicit does NOT deserve that office. This should not be a partisan issue, it should be a matter of adhering to our laws.

Another says that we are "sympathizing with the terrorists" if we go forward with an investigation and that 9/11 victims want Gitmo, Bagram, etc (and thus they want torture, indefinite detention?). This is a false argument and an appeal to emotions, rather than the logic of investigating those who broke our laws. They have as much right to an opinion as every other American does.

An investigation is the right thing to do, and there are no legitimate arguments that there shouldn't be, even "I want to look ahead."

[rich misty]

Fanned and faved, you are absolutely, 100% correct.

[rich misty]

What happened under Bush will be repeated under any conservative adminstration. In addition to all the illegal behavior, there will also be the same incompetent governance.

The very best way to make sure it does not happen again is to vote out the entire Conservative ideology and never permit it back into government again.

[Grunty1]

Agreed. Their criminal behavior has been escalating since Nixon.. It must be squashed entirely or it will continue to get worse.

[PWM]

Bush was no conservative. A conservative would never undo the Constitution.

[rich misty]

Bush was a model Conservative. In every way. And Conservates cheered him for eight long years as he did his very best to destroy my country.

[Grunty1]

Her was a model Rushpublican though.

Extreme right-wing on pesueo-religious issues (gays and abortions, basically)
Extremely radical on everything else.

[washlib]

Agreed. Bush and his cabal(really nixon's cabal) are 1mperialist, corporatist, f4cist NEO LIBERALS straight out of the 19th century. They care not for human life or liberty, only for solidifying their power and financial bases.

[betty22]

can we move on to the future for the better instead.dwelling in the past.....progress is good

[LemonMeringue]

Sit down, Liz.

[LemonMeringue]

A new Sheriff is in town and the Republicans are universally despised.

I don't think too much of them for this, considering their complicity in spreading Cheney propaganda, but I am glad to see it in print anyway.

[spandautoseattle]

Criminals of all nationalities over the last 10000 years would have happily agreed with this approach.

[rich misty]

As long as the future holds a prosecutor assigned to investigated Bush from one end to the other I am all for it.

[Lauralics]

What if it never happens? How are you ever going to lance that boil? It'll be pretty hard to handle all that pus that the Democrats filled you with and then to deny you the medicine to heal it. If you're denied, it is in your best interest to thorougly investigate the Democrats and their agenda, don't you think?

[rich misty]

"What if it never happens?"

I always took the approach that nothing in life is a sure thing if it has not happened yet, but that does not stop me from working hard to get the things I want. I always planned to defeat Conservatism in the polls so soundly that it will be basically removed from the federal government, and then follow up to make sure it never comes back.

[PWM]

That is what Himmler wanted - NO.

[talkitreal]

Holder, and the Depatment of Justice better uphold the Constutitution, and apply the rule of law to everyone, and that includes Bush, and Cheney (if they have committed crimes)
Those who worked in the Nixon Administration, and committed crimes, were investigated, and and charged, and NIXON had to resign! The Executive Branch DOES NOT have a free range to ignore the Constitution, and the Laws of this country - ,and if Bush, and Cheney are suspected of breaking laws, they should be investigated by the Justice Department.

[DimBulb2]

this must be really scary for the repuds
the tr0lls are here en masse

[rich misty]

It kind of upsets there "Bush will never be investigated you libs can $^$#* - LOL" meme

[FROG1]

did you pass Grade 3? - it's 'their' not 'there'

[LemonMeringue]

What are they so scared of?

If BushCo is innocent he will be exonerated, right?

[PWM]

The fear is where will it end. If Bush is found guilty of war crimes, then so will his people, and eventually the Republicans in Congress who turned a blind eye to his crimes.

[Lauralics]

I'm not scared, I'm just saddened that Democrats ran such a huge progaganda machine and then fall short of doing anything about it. It reeks to the high heavens and would have held more punch if they had done it years ago. All this going around, and around on the subject just makes Democrats look wishy-washy and the real culprits of deception.

[johnmorgan]

I was saying these things in 2001. The New York Times was too busy cheerleading everything Bush wanted to say these things when they would have made a difference.

[themainpoint]

exactly. why the switch?

[rich misty]

Because some of the things republicans love had not been exposed back then.

The torture memos had not been released etc.. It is okay to change your mind based on experience and new information.

[LemonMeringue]

Apparently Dick Cheney is not able to control the NY Times these days, as he did then.

[lightningbolt]

"We know less, so far, about the Bush administration’s plan to send covert paramilitary teams to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders."

If the plan was to assassinate al qaeda leaders, there would have been no reason to keep the program secret from Congress. I think they were trying to assassinate other people, which they did need to keep secret.

[Lauralics]

"We know less, so far, about the Bush administration"s plan to send covert paramilitary teams to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders."


They sent covert "drones" instead, which is also what Obama is doing.

[rich misty]

Prove it. I think they were targeting liberals here in America. People they did not like for political reasons.

[LemonMeringue]

Pat Tillman

David Kelly

possibly Bhutto

[Lauralics]

They never needed to send it to congress, they opted for "drones" instead. Obama has opted for "drones" as well.

[rich misty]

Prove it, I think there were going after domestic enemies just like Nixon did.

[LemonMeringue]

If so an investigation will clear that all up, dontcha think? You should welcome it.

[Grunty1]

Seems pretty obvious, right? Bush was publically saying that he wanted OBL dead way back in 2001.

[PWM]

Must be why when Afganistan was visited Bush waited two months before sending troops in the very area OBL was hiding. OBL was too usedful alive and the BL family are pals of the Bush family.

[rich misty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o

Bush is on record saying he really did not care about OBL...

[LemonMeringue]

Bush was releasing videos with OBL so fake it could have been my husband in a fake big nose and a fake beare. It was laughable.

Doesn't that bother you? Why would he do that?

[cdnnewsjunky]

Ya which makes 911 all that more puzzling how George could have overlooked the warning. I mean if he was actively engaging AQ then he should have had the brains to heed the warning, afterall he was poking a stick into a hornest nest at the time.

[Lauralics]

No, history shows that it was Clinton poking at Al Qaeda. With his rich experience of dealing with Al Qaeda, why the heck didn't he start investigating Muslim men in this country and implement stringent airport security? Oh that's right, those things are hot potatoes he didn't want to touch (he had his hands full of other things).

[rich misty]

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

Airline safety bill

Both Clinton and Gore were aware of the increased danger and both of them took active steps to prevent attacks to take additional measures against terr0rism, including the creation of a Justice Dept task force that was disbanded when Bush took office.

Gore supported the airline safety bill, and Republicans stopped it in Congress.

[LemonMeringue]

What good were the Nuremberg trials? Those did not bring back the dead.

Why do people record the history of the Holocaust?

Why do we put any criminals in prison?

What's done is done. One could argue all of the above are a huge waste of time. Are they?

[lightningbolt]

Punishing criminals does not undo the crime, but it sets an example which makes it less likely that those crimes will be committed again.

[sc300nc]

Give it up folks...it's not going to happen.

Obama is next in line to be investigated. Remember that.

[kareemachan]

For what? Trying to clean up Shrub's messes?

[sc300nc]

LOL, wait and watch.

[GreatNews27]

But we WANT these abuses to happen again. That is why Obama is scuttling any investigations.

[northstar11]

god took 7 days to create the world

obama may need few more to restore it

[Lauralics]

Taking Bush's ball and running with it is more like "maintaining" not restoring.

ps Are you saying Obama is right up there with God? Scary.

[BandsofBlack]

It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to appoint someone to investigate.

Obama should have made sure it was done immediately.

[rbenjamin]

Nice to see the NYT is on top of things, slamming the barn door shut and raising the alarm. How about investigating your own shoddy reporting/editorial practices during the run-up to Iraq for starters?

[Lauralics]

I don't agree, shoddy reporting/editorial practices on Iraq went on during the 90's and throughout the Clinton Administration. Countless quotes from Democrats on why Saddam was evil and needed to be ousted.

ps Running a billion dollar no-fly zone certainly helped create the illusion that Saddam needed to be contained. How else to explain it? Dictators that aren't a threat don't usually get a U.N./US Military run no-fly zone, now do they.

[rbenjamin]

True enough, but there was a time, and not so long ago, when the NYT was a great paper, that exposed United States Government abuses and challenged bad policies, foreign and domestic. Then it became a cheerleader, rewriting Bush press releases, holding back information because the administration said they should. When courage was required, they didn't show it. I hope the NYT is returning to its roots, but I will remain skeptical for a long while.

[FROG1]

LOL on top of things? LOL

[Grunty1]

[slamming the barn door shut ]

The allusion to closing the barn door after the livestock escaped is the clue that the statement is satire.

[medicinecat]

Right, the NYT and everybody else who walks in an upright position without dragging their knuckles. Are you listening, Dem majority? This is something most of us want, like public option healthcare. I said, are you listening politicians-I-helped to elect?

[looneybin]

by most you mean most posters here right?

[medicinecat]

Your lack of grammar and syntax betray your time spent on conservative sites, where you are obviously more comfortable.

[Dredd]

That NYT piece is as accurate and as visionary as it gets.

There must be accountability if there is to be democracy.

[Lauralics]

Accurate and visionary? More like persecution and allegations without the benefit of a trial. The NYT's says: Guilty (when did they become a court of law?).

[cdnnewsjunky]

Why worry about rule of law now? Republicans didn't care about rule of law when they illegally invaded Iraq. Republicans didn't care about rule of law when they decided to torture.

Oh I get it, Republicans only worry about rule of law if the law is going to prosecute them.

How are them freedom fries tasting?

[JoAnnCr]

If we do not investigate and prosecute leaders or former leaders when called for, why the heck should any other country give up their violent change of power habits in favor of "democracy?"

America should put their money where their mouth is or otherwise shut the blank up about what a great system of government we have!!

[northstar11]

the United Fakes of America???