GOP Learns Definition of 'Investigation,' Freaks Out
Republicans from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence say that they will no longer participate in an investigation into the Bush administration's interrogation policies, arguing that they were all for investigations until Attorney General Eric Holder outrageously called for investigations.
Investigations are one thing, but investigations are another matter entirely, a discombobulated Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO) told the Washington Post.
"Had Mr. Holder honored the pledge made by the President to look forward, not backwards, we would still be active participants in the Committee's review."
We'd be investigating right now if it wasn't for all this business about investigating!
Someone, fetch me the Tylenol, or at least explain to the sophomoric Sen. Bond, a man who refers to CIA agents accused of torture as "terror fighters," that investigations inherently mean looking back at evidence, and cannot solely entail looking forward. "Looking forward" is a euphemism for covering up past crimes.
The GOP is starting to sound like a broken record with this, "We'd be changing stuff if we didn't have to change stuff" anthem. First, we heard this with health care. "We're psyched to change health care as long as we preserve private insurance companies!" And now it's the same argument with the torture investigations. "Of course we want to prosecute crimes! As long as no one looks at any evidence, no witnesses are called, and absolutely no one acknowledges anything bad ever happened. I can't hear you! [Fingers in ears] LA, LA, LA, LA!"
Really, what are the limits of this hapless quest for bipartisanship? There has to be a point where the Democrats accept that they are the adults in the room, and move forward with their promises of reform and accountability.
Thankfully, at least for the moment, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the committee chairman, said she intends to press forth with or without Republican support. "That study and investigation is being pursued, additional staff are being hired, and the committee is continuing the work with all due diligence."
Good. Unsurprisingly, investigations do better when they entail persons interested in the whole investigating part of the process.
Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.
Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny
Ari Melber: Obama and The State Secrets Smackdown
Barack Obama has drawn praise for transparency reforms during his first 100 days in office, but his use of the "state secrets" privilege to squash lawsuits on torture and surveillance is drawing mounting opposition.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Maybe it's time for "Organizing for America" to establish itself as a viable third party.
They made the difference in 2008 and can make the difference again in 2010 and 2012.
I’m sure they can field qualified candidates from within their ranks.
Living in Missouri,I can say that Bond is a strictly partisan ideologue that has never accomplished anything of importance for this state or the nation. But he is re-elected and re-elected without even trying. Why is that?
Because in the good State of Missouri, at least 70% of registered voters...v
So until the mindless masses refuse to ask questions then we'll continue to end up with representatives like Bond.
I wonder if that's enough to get their tax-exempt status revoked? Probably not, but if the sign is still up, it might be a laugh to get a picture of it and report it to the FEC and/or the IRS.
Great job, Ms. Kilkenney. I look forward to your future postings.
BTW, I'd love to hear the genealogy of your surname, if you know? It looks Irish/Scottish?
I never thought I would see the day when AMERICANS would be arguing over the practicality and support of torture. The most ironic thing is these same people brag that they live in the most "civilized" nation on earth! By justifying torture you have automatically become a terrorist yourself, albeit blindly. Im just not into this jingoistic, blind patriotism associated with the pro-torture ilk. Please do not mention that as non-signatories terrorists are exempt from not being tortured because that is a very poor attempt (and one used by bad lawyers who use obscure legal loopholes to get their blatantly guilty clients out of jail time) to justify the unjustifiable.
I hate to bring up the Founding Fathers because we have absolutely no clue what they would say about 99% of the policies of the American government but they are spinning in their graves knowing that the nation they created in opposition to oppression, the attainment of liberty, and the expulsion of tyranny was practicing savage torture in, many times, their own names.
Terrorists that commit these atrocities are savage. We get that. But I for one will not lower myself to their level by torturing anybody.
Hear! Hear!
What I don't understand is why our soldiers complied? Isn't it true that if our military receives orders that are in direct contradiction to our Constitution and to the Geneva Convention that they are bound to not comply?
Anyone one that looks the other way to war crimes that resulted in torture and death is an accesory after the fact and that includes us, the citizens that these folks represents. Our govt officials cannot be compared to ordinary citizens, they have to be better because they don't just represent us, today but all those that came before us. And if we allow this to go unpunished, it dishonors every sacrifice ever made in the name of liberty, justice, democracy and freedom. To be cliche, one wrong cannot justify another.
Our own Congressmen don't understand the constitution, how do you expect the soldiers to grasp the issues?
"Someone, fetch me the Tylenol, or at least explain to the sophomoric Sen. Bond, a man who refers to CIA agents accused of torture as "terror fighters," that investigations inherently mean looking back at evidence, and cannot solely entail looking forward. "Looking forward" is a euphemism for covering up past crimes."
Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to understand that either.
Here's the thing. We've pulled back the curtain and saw the "wizard" and it was corrupt, in bed with special interests and daddy issues. While we were in shock, they found a thread in the fabric of our nation and pulled until it was threadbare, leaving us fully exposed.
We felt a draft and began clamoring for a repair of our reputation and they're trying to kick sand over the evidence, pointing to something over our shoulders, "Look over there, what's that?"
While they bring in justification to bulldoze the truth, "What we don't see anything?"
Ahh but there's the rub, we do see and we want to know. And yes we can handle the truth! We want heads on platters! We want JUSTICE for what THEY did in OUR name! And please spare us the scapgoat crumbs! We don't want some overly zealous guard that followed orders only too well, never questioning what that made us. The moment we LET them tarnish our honor, we became NO better than them!
The only way that we can ensure that "it" never happens again is to make examples of the main players. Only then will people have learned lessons. We are a nation of laws with righteous, ethical principles. We are the defenders of the weak from injustice. We're the good guys, right?
The moment we allowed our dark nature for vengence sway us, they won!
Co-sign, fanned.
Republicans have given up logic and reason. Sen. Christopher Bond said "We would be glad to have a review, if only a review was not called for. Once it is called for we decline to participat
There are a lot of people on this thread saying the Geneva conventions doesn't apply to "terrorists" because they did not sign the conventions. Can anyone tell me where in the Geneva conventions it says that it is OK to torture non-signers? My reading of it bans torture in ALL cases.
Hair-splitting is a troll specialty. Not that they are particularly good at it.
I have said before, the GC are a moral compass FOR US.
So you are absolutely right.
The bottom line is this discussion is all about the Rule of Law as aggreed to in the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions were written by, and for, signatory countries fighting other signatory countries (read "civilized" folks warring on other "civilized' folks).
I defy anyone here to prove that "terrorists", "pirates", and "barbaric savages" were to be included in this select club of nations.
Do it!
They can't but they can call you names which by morning is bound to happen.
The big picture does not fit in their template so they can not see it, and therefore it does not exist.
Nobody's called names yet. Perhaps that's because no-one can come up with an insult that rivals the vulgarity of her chosen moniker.
Where does it say that the rules of the Geneva Conventions apply only to signatory countries? You'll have to show me that part. You might also ponder the irony of referring to yourself as coming from a "civilized" country in the same sentence that you justify torture and human rights violations against other human beings. You play a lot looser with the word "civilized" than most.
Well, the Supreme Court thinks so. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, they ruled that Bush's proposed system of military commissions was not constitutional, because it violated Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which does indeed apply to non-citizens and enemy combatants. I don't believe the court discussed whether "barbaric savages" were covered by the Geneva Conventions. Possibly because these are not legal terms, but verbal red flags which you wave around for their shock value?
You could argue that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision. But I'd be inclined to go with their interpretation before yours.
I think your interpretation of the importance of the Rule of Law is extremely distorted. The value of the idea of the Rule of Law comes from the idea of being able to hold even the most powerful people in the country accountable to the same law as the rest of us. "No man is above the law"---even the people who write or enforce the laws.
You seem to be focused on sorting the world into neat categories of people: "civilized" vs. "barbaric.
The hallmark of a civilized people is being able to maintain the standards we set for ourselves without sinking to the level of those we claim are our enemies. If, by torturing and kidnapping and bombing innocent civilians, our enemies can entice us to torture and kidnap and bomb innocent civilians (which is precisely what we've been doing for 8 years now), then what's the point of being "us"? We might as well join forces.
Co-signed. Fanned.
Does this mean that if Catholics or mechanics or
Elementary Teachers or text-ers or cell phone users
were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
that they were not to be included as beneficiaries of
its favor?
The real criminals are the ones who devised, authorized, and implemented the torture. They even went to the extreme of finding lackies to try to make it sound legal. This should be the focal point of investigation. By trying to justify it with dubious legal decisions, they took away the option of those who actually did it to refuse to follow an illegal order. Direct the investigation and then the prosecution of those actually responsible.
Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
Co-sign.
All criminal prosecution is based on looking back at past events. Except in the movie "Minority Report" (Tom Cruise movie where they prosecuted individuals based on the future crimes they would commit). "Minority Report", Sen. Bond a member of the "minority party," am I sensing a little conspiracy here? I think Bond's real theory is, it's only a crime if the other party does it.
I have a question for you. During the Vietnam war we claimed to not have any units in Laos yet I flew mercenaries into Laos many times on assignation missions. 5 man teams under American control but fighters from all over the world. Because of that should I be prosecuted because we were doing something that was denied and were known assassination teams targeting North Vietnamese high ranking officers?
There are things that have to be done and it is even more critical with us fighting an enemy that has no value of life and kills Innocent people, both their own and others, without hesitation. The Geneva convention never had such an enemy in mind when it was formed. The last time I heard the terrorist are not a signature to the convention nor do they follow it whether we torture or not.
Precisely stated!
If you're going to do things on behalf of your government which are illegal, you should be willing to go to jail. If you're willing to die for your country, you should also be willing to give up your freedom from your country. If you get caught, and the government has to keep its plausible deniability, well, them's the breaks.
That said, this is another can of beans entirely. During the Vietnam war, to my knowledge, no administration consciously pushed to rewrite well-established laws on treatment of prisoners, surveillance, or the permissibility of torture. I don't believe the low-level CIA agents who carried out the torture should be the main focus. The main focus should be Yoo, Rumsfeld, Addington, Cheney, and Bush. They knew they wanted to torture and they tried to rewrite the laws to allow it. But our laws don't allow it. They were caught--no, they confessed to their crime on national television. If Americans are serious about rule of law, we need to either prosecute these men, or say, "To Hell with the Geneva Conventions, we're legalizing torture."
You really should have been cognizant of such things as "illegal orders." And that, if you knowingly act on illegal orders, YOU are as responsible as the ones that gave them.
So, yes, if the statute of limitations hasn't run out [which, for murder, it never does] - I would say prosecute you to the very fullest extent of the law.
The short answer to whether you should be prosecuted is "YES," assuming the statue of limitations has not run. And if it was murder you conspired to accomplish, and succeeded, there is not statute of limitations.
The right wing has become a joke.
You may think that it is all one sided but the fact is things like this occur on both sides and will continue to do so. There are things that must be done to protect the country and it is not as simple as many of you want it to be.
If you destroy the motivation of the CIA and other support groups you will have accomplished nothing more than weakened out defenses at a time when terrorists will seek to take advantage of those weaknesses. Blow that theory off if you will but you need to look at the big picture and stop focusing on a single snap shot.
The same thing applies to Afghanistan, if we pull out and let the Taliban return it will signal to other countries that they can not depend on the US to assist them when the going gets even a little rocky. We need to secure the country and assist Pakistan in stopping the Taliban there as well.
If you are perceived as being weak others will take advantage of that weakness. It is a simple fact of life.
Torture is NEVER OK! Collateral damage is not OK either! America DOES NOT TORTURE! Bush/Cheney needs to be held accountable for their actions. IMHO only COWARDS torture. It does not produce reliable intelligence, it only gets people to agree with anything the torturers tell them. In essence, torture is BRAINWASHING, pure and simple!
"If you destroy the motivation of the CIA and other support groups ,,,;
So you are saying that the CIA is motivated by their ability to torture?
Do you have any concept of how f-ed up that sounds? And how f-ed up that is?
You are, frankly, beneath contempt.
They have become a joke, but an unfunny one.
Great article and great skewering of the distorted thinking of the Rethuglicans who are afraid to investigate the criminal torture programs from the Shrub administration (if our President or any of his administration get involved in criminal behavior, investigate them, too -- no one, no party, no group in America is above the law). Why would they not want to investigate this? Speaker Pelosi, who the Rushpublicans keep on youdititooing, isn't afraid of the investigation: why should GOPers be? Dick Cheney says everything they did was the right thing to do; who could worry about an investigation into that.?
I especially like your pointing out that evidence inherently means having to look backward. LOL. ... I'm not a lawyer or a politician, but even I understand that one.
Investigate them all, follow the investigation wherever it leads, no matter who is doing the investigation -- the DOJ or the senate subcommittee. This is a big enough criminal mess that room exists for all. Make sure you don't tread on each other's investigation, make sure you've done everything correctly, apolitically, and then punish to the fullest extent of the law ALL criminals, no matter who they are, without accepting for a second the soundly-rejected Nuremburg defense even our POTUS has appeared to offer.
And lets not forget that Senator Feinstein just recently stated that Attorney General Holder was quick in naming a special prosecutor and that she thought he should have waited until after her committee investigation. If she did what Sen. Bond and the Republicans demand, then there would be no investigations by Senate or the Justice Dept.
All in the interest of bipartisanship with a vanquished criminal foe.
"Good. Unsurprisingly, investigations do better when they entail persons interested in the whole investigating part of the process."
Allison, I think there are as many Democrats that want this investigation to go away as Republicans. Senator Bond is walking away from it because the GOP has decided to simply go into dormancy and not work, in any way, shape, or form, for the American people. In addition, with Senator Bond representing the only Republican on the Select Committee, his leaving turns the investigation into a partisan affair by default ... but that doesn't get the Democrats off the hook either.
It would be naive to think the Democrats on the Intelligence Committees didn't know what Bush Co was up to. I don't think that the Democrats necessarily supported all that Bush did, but it does seem they allowed themselves, for whatever reason, to be railroaded into enabling War Crimes. Let's be straight here, there are people in power positions who go morally snow blind when the term "Arab Terrorist" is rolled out ... it's a great carrot for potentially immoral acts.
Allison, you hold out hope for an honest investigation in light of Senator Bond leaving the Select Committee. I'm not sure if the remaining Democrats on the Intelligence Committee can afford it. I hope I am wrong, but I think whether or not the Republicans are engaged in the process there are still some Democrats that find themselves compromised.
Too bad! You should live your morals and if you compromise them you should pay for that lack of moral conviction. There are no excuses!
As disgusting as it sounds, they perhaps ARE living their morals. Which is a truly pathetic thing to acknowledge.
Pathetic. Period.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
