. . .

the Senate report if you equate redacting with obstruction. Likewise, if you equate redaction with interference, then it's not possible to argue that the White House isn't "interfering" with the report.

I'd prefer complete transparency and a full release, but then again, that may be why I'm inherently ill-suited for an executive position in the area of law-enforcement or security.

. . . and if that involves some illegality by whoever is doing it.

Maybe I'm placing too much importance in the term 'cover-up, which is politically charged.

Maybe it depends on whether the CIA is actually implicated in anything which could be judged illegal and whether the president knew of and approved those actions (answering my own question).

Regardless of what Obama's core beliefs on the matter are (who knows?), I think he's convinced that the spectacle of a long, bitter, divisive, and all-consuming legal battle over war crimes prosecutions for former and current military, government, and security officials would be extremely costly for the Democratic Party. He's signaled pretty clearly and consistently that he's against it. I might suggest he's scared of it.

Even though I marched, rallied, wrote letters, and sent contributions to prosecute the war criminals, I have to admit, reluctantly, that he may be correct in his estimation of the real political support for this fight.

Sure, national polls show broad support exists for things like income equality, but questions about national security and counter-terrorism are among those that remind us of how deeply Americans are divided and how removed from the majority the typical DUer really is.

. . . I tend to believe his reluctance to allow full disclosure of the Bush-era abuses are mostly a protection and defense against revelations about his own administration's conduct which has co-opted/inherited many material aspects of Bush's 'war on terror.'

In many ways he appears to be protecting his own prerogatives to employ many of those objectionable and institutionally embarrassing methods and operations, like 'extraordinary renditions' and allowing interrogation techniques to be performed on the U.S. behalf in other countries which look the other way regarding such abuses. That's reflected in the way that the administration is opposing the Senate committee efforts to reveal those countries that aided the Bush administration in those efforts.

Thanks for the discussion.

. . . the more I'm convinced that it would be devastating for the party.

I'm not sure how I'd consider my own interest in defending against the political impact; I'm more sure about how I'd regard the actual issues involved.

I was on surer ground defending Clinton against charges for an affair that I couldn't have cared less about.

I'm definitely certain about my reaction (in my teens) to the Watergate scandal.

I want to post something here that I think is a good measure and analysis of how we might regard the impact of a prosecution or investigation of a presidency on the party - this one positing on the impact on the nation (not the same as on the party, I know) of a prosecution of Nixon for crimes stemming from an attempt by Nixon to dig up dirt on his political opponents -chilling, but less consequential, in many ways, than outright obstruction of a Senate investigation onto the CIA, if that's what's proven or even investigated here.

I can understand President Obama's or Democratic legislator's or official's reluctance to open the party to something like that. I can also understand rank-and-file Democrats' concern about that impact on the party. Would that be my primary concern? I don't know.


Anyway, this is a memorandum prepared for the Watergate Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworksi, on the day Richard Nixon resigned the presidency.

(the decision to pardon Nixon was reportedly made by Ford without asking the advice of the Watergate special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who had the legal responsibility to prosecute the case)

Note the second image with the arguments in favor of a prosecution . . . I'm in that school of thought.

TO: Leon Jaworski, Special Prosecutor
DATE: August 9, 1974
FROM: Carl B Feldbaum & Peter M. Kreindler
SUBJECT: Factors to be Considered in Deciding Whether to Prosecute Richard M. Nixon for Obstruction of Justice





fwiw

People have complained that President Obama bucks the party; and now he playing the partisanship game. What no one seems to recognize is President Obama has time and time again demonstrated that he is beyond partisanship ... rather he does what he believes is best for this nation.

Now whether you agree, or not, that he is acting in the best interest of the nation is another issue; but no observer can claim he is acting out of partisan or personal interest.

. . .you know, good motives and all - in the national interest - pressure . . .

Is that really a legitimate defense? What if he's protecting or defending some operational prerogative which doesn't comport with the law? Something regarding torture, like his defense of the summary executions from the air with drones?

protecting or defending the country by NOT engaging something that will tear this country apart, politically, and create a precedent for not only second-guessing; but prosecuting members of a previous administration for what amounts to political decisions that a significant portion of congress was a party to?

... protect the Party and our country. Yeah, that's it.

Jeeeezus H. Keerist.

. . .that holding his administration and his deputies accountable for their actions has to necessarily 'tear this country apart.'

I would think that is his cabinet members, including those in the national security posts, should invite the scrutiny that several Democratic legislators have asked for in their call for a further investigation into Brennan's conduct surrounding the Senate investigation into his agency.

He opened himself and his agency up for the scrutiny when the office he oversees admittedly interfered into a Senate investigation into the CIA behavior in a way which was evidently designed to impede their progress. Along with our expectation that the President and the director's internal oversight to investigate themselves, there is also a constitutional role for the Senate to do so in accordance with the checks and balances inherent in our democratic system of government.

In essence, it's sometimes not enough for that democratic process of government to expect that the executive is always sufficient in accounting for their own conduct. We make judgments about that all of the time, and I expect the Senate will deliberate that in committee at some point in regard to Brennan's conduct.

Now, as to the conduct of the previous administration, I truly believe that we are already suffering from the refusal to hold the previous administration accountable. I think that is evident in the manner in which this White House appears to be holding onto many of the more egregious of abuses that we're decrying about the last one; notably, the continued renditions; the continued use of other nations to carry out acts on behalf of our nation in the name of 'national security' which our own country has either outlawed or has determined objectionable conduct.

I don't think it's sufficient to point to the executive order the President correctly directed early in his administration which only covers "some' of the abuses in question, as he mentioned in his statement Friday. I think there's ample evidence that there are a number of actions that fall within the President's admonitions that "we did somethings that were wrong;" including some conduct that's continuing right in front of us, like at Gitmo, where some tortures are not considered by this administration as crimes or even as objectionable.

Those are some of the areas that I feel would bear, should bear more scrutiny from our legislature.

I would note that it's mostly members of his own party calling for that kind of accountability. Further, I fail to see how a defense of 'they're all responsible' precludes the need or efficacy of an investigation into their conduct.

As for precedent, I think that's shaky ground to fall back on the notion that such scrutiny or prosecution is 'unprecedented.' I don't believe the standard for such accountability should rest on the defense that it's never been prosecuted before, even if you believe that to be the case. I'm not sure that's accurate, at any rate.

I was under the impression that the torturing was done under the previous Administration ... No?

. . if he hadn't inserted himself into the debate so overtly in several ways.

One of the more obvious is his refusal to move forward with any accountability beyond 'allowing' the publicizing of the Senate Intelligence report. Even at that, under President Obama's ultimate authority, the CIA has foot-dragged and outright obstructed the intelligence committee's attempt to investigate and report their findings.

Instead of fumbling through my own understanding of events, let me offer some accounts that I believe are credible:

Marcy Wheeler was a high profile journalist reporting on the Scooter Libby trial. In 2013, Newsweek published an article about Wheeler titled "The Woman Who Knows The NSA's Secrets.

here's Marcy in March:

____ We can be sure about one thing: The Obama White House has covered up the Bush presidency’s role in the torture program for years. Specifically, from 2009 to 2012, the administration went to extraordinary lengths to keep a single short phrase, describing President Bush’s authorization of the torture program, secret.

Some time before October 29, 2009, then National Security Advisor Jim Jones filed an ex parte classified declaration with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in response to a FOIA request by the ACLU seeking documents related to the torture program. In it, Jones argued that the CIA should not be forced to disclose the “source of the CIA’s authority,” as referenced in the title of a document providing “Guidelines for Interrogations” and signed by then CIA Director George Tenet. That document was cited in two Justice Department memos at issue in the FOIA. Jones claimed that “source of authority” constituted an intelligence method that needed to be protected.

. . . The White House’s fight to keep the short phrase describing Bush’s authorization of the torture program hidden speaks to its apparent ambivalence over the torture program. Even after President Obama released the DOJ memos authorizing torture – along with a damning CIA Inspector General Report and a wide range of documents revealing bureaucratic discussions within the CIA about torture – the White House still fought the release of the phrase that would have made it clear that the CIA conducted this torture at the order of the president. And it did so with a classified declaration from Jones that would have remained secret had Judge Hellerstein not insisted it be made public.

As Aftergood noted, such White House intervention in a FOIA suit is rare. “The number of times that a national security advisor has filed a declaration in a FOIA lawsuit is vanishingly small,” he said. “It almost never happens.” But as ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer noted of the finding, “It was the original authority for the CIA’s secret prisons and for the agency’s rendition and torture program, and apparently it was the authority for the targeted killing program as well. It was the urtext. It’s remarkable that after all this time it’s still secret.”

President Obama’s willingness to go to such lengths to hide this short phrase may explain the White House’s curious treatment of potentially privileged documents with the Senate now – describing President Bush’s authorization of the torture program and its seemingly contradictory stance supporting publishing the Torture Report while thwarting its completion by withholding privileged documents. After all, the documents in question, like the reference to the presidential finding, may deprive the President of plausible deniability.

Furthermore, those documents may undermine one of the conclusions of the Torture Report. According to Senator Ron Wyden, the Senate Torture Report found that “the CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information about its interrogation program to the White House.” Perhaps the documents reportedly withheld by the White House undermine this conclusion, and instead show that the CIA operated with the full consent and knowledge of at least some people within the White House . . .
_______________________

Now, you might respond that this is still mostly about the actions of the previous administration. That's correct, but there's obviously some institutional reason for resisting disclosure of their activities in court and in outright refusal to comply with information requests from interested parties in the legislature. Most notably is the drone program which has the same authorization structure that the Bush-era actors practiced and are presently defending against this report.

That's an area (and several others like GITMO) where I believe, and many others believe, is where the President's desire to protect his prerogative is influencing his foot dragging on a complete accounting of the previous administration's conduct. If that speculation seems obtuse and hard to confirm, it's because it's designed to by the administration, many believe, to hide the fact that it is his own order which allows these objectionable, and possibly illegal, programs to operate or continue.

Certainly all of those policies can be debated and resolved in some way through making those actions available to the legislature to mitigate and judge. That's not a course this administration has chosen to take on a number of remnants from Bush's 'war on terror;' like renditions, torture-friendly nations, 'extra-judicial killings, and the like. Authorization on all of these may well be successfully mitigated through Congress, but the President has made a determination to hold back accountability for whatever authority he's assumed to carry out these policies and actions(to order them).

Those are areas where the Bush-era abuses and the present activities of the Obama CIA collide. Those are the prerogatives of President Obama which he shares with the former administration that he's fought to obscure and keep secret through many questionable moves.

That obstruction, that collusion with the prerogatives of the Bush administration's 'war on terror' may well have withstood legislative attempts to delve deeper and demand more public accountability, but the Senate was spurred to investigate the CIA activities under Bush because of deliberate, and admitted destruction of key evidence. having been confronted about that by Congress. the agencies involved agreed to provide dual paperwork which they claimed contained the same evidence that had been discarded. That's where the present investigation took over, first under Jay Rockefeller, then under Sen. Feinstein in 2009.

In the course of that investigation, there was systematic and blatant interference, obstruction, surveillance, and intimidation of committee staffers by the Brennan/Obama CIA. It was first denied by the director when confronted in March; later admitted to last week.

Added to that, the president put this same interfering and obstructing CIA in charge of editing the 'executive summary' of the Senate Intelligence Committee findings which is to be the ONLY public accounting of the actions of the former administration.

Right after the President addressed reporters on the torture report Friday, it was revealed by senate committee members that the documents they submitted to the White House, to the President, for approval for release had been heavily redacted and had "eliminated and obscured key information" which supported the report's conclusions.

That editing process was/is being led by Brennan, who admitted his agency's role, the agency he oversees, in obstructing those findings. Further, an effort to rebut the report is reportedly being directly aided by all three former CIA directors under Bush and others who participated in or ordered the activities and abuses in question in the report's findings.


Let's go back to the questions I asked in the op:

What did the President know about the CIA's obstruction, interference, and intimidation of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers investigating the agency's activities?

What role did the President have in what Sen. Feinstein terms 'eliminating or obscuring key facts that support the report’s findings and conclusions?'

I'm asking DUers, at what point do we conclude that there's enough evidence that the Obama White House is unlawfully obstructing the Senate investigation's report? Do we wait for the Senate committee members to say so? (they've come very close to that conclusion)

I'm all for waiting to see what the White House ultimately decides to leave in and leave out of it's 'executive summary' of the investigation's findings, but there's already enough interference, obstruction, intimidation, and 'redacting' on the record for me to conclude that something major is being perpetrated - even if someone in or out of the WH can rationalize us away from calling it a 'cover-up.'

I would further ask or seek to uncover, what role the Obama CIA has played in not only protecting or defending the prerogatives of the Bush-era abuses, but how many of those have been continued or perpetuated in this administration and into the future for other Presidents to advantage their own actions?

In all of that, I see serious questions of obstruction of justice; violations of the Fourth Amendment; violations of the separations of powers, including the Speech and Debate clause; and as Sen. Feinstein put it, actions which may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.

As in all important and consequential inquires, they are just that: inquiries. That is, if and up until something is revealed in that inquiry which is found to be illegal, unethical, or out of the bounds of what Congress is willing to allow. The process of inquiry isn't necessarily a determinative one. Nor does a prosecution effort necessarily mean a conviction.

What most people are asking for is due process of law, and a responsiveness to the oversight responsibilities of our legislature. that is the area where this administration has, I believe, inserted itself in an overt and questionable manner. I wonder why?

What is is about the prerogatives of the present Obama CIA that is preventing them from being as open as the Senate Intelligence Committee desires and expects? That's the pretext the President is giving critics and investigators to tie him to the abuses and activities of the Bush-era tortures; the cover-up. That's what has been the sticking point in most 'scandals' involving the Executive Branch. I happen to believe that most of the obstruction is unnecessary, but obviously, this administration, this President, feels there's something in that process for him to defend.

The manner in which it's being defended by the administration is the subject of debate, as it should be. This isn't inadvertent obstruction, it's deliberate and highly questionable behavior which is trampling on more than a few laws. I happen to think the President would be better served to order all relevant information be revealed. I think he would disagree with that. So, there we are.

Let's see how far President Obama is willing for his CIA to bend to the wishes of the Senate investigators in the coming weeks, but I don't think we should lose sight of, or refuse to seek accountability for the obstruction from those offices, over which he has ultimate authority, that's already occurred.

and a conspiracy to make it so just makes it orders of magnitude worse.

What is toxic for America is wiping, dangling, and covering for dark age brutality that we have executed people for ourselves still in living memory and destroying the principle of equality under the law in our country.

as a "political decision", just don't have the stomach for it.

Even if the pay is phenomenal what does a man profit if he gains the whole world if he loses his soul?

You're quite right, I will and must pass on that job but I don't see how that limits me from other positions.

per the geneva convention. ignoring that reality for political purposes is also a crime. america loses its soul more and more each day.

they do, but in a Democracy, it is the CITIZENS, unburdened by the influences politicians are subject to, free of the need to 'explain' away major crimes, because maybe their buddies were involved, are totally free to use LOGIC and make their decisions based on that.

The most important job in a democracy is that of the ordinary citizen. Which is why it is so important that citizens have access to factual information and why those in power work so hard to prevent that from happening.

It sounds like more a matter of arguing over clearance and release of information to the general public. Usually a cover up involves keeping information from the other check and balance parts of the government. And yes I can't imagine anyone that doesn't giggle at the very CIA that did a lot of the illegal stuff telling the senate what it can and can't release. It also looks stupid arguing with your own party on something you publicly say you don't support. Politically it isn't exactly wowing me as a great midterm election plan.

As people have notice Obama has never been interested in a war crimes trial in public. He got reelected having made that stance so I guess I shouldn't be surprised he is trying to push this reports release past the last midterm of his presidency. That said if the popularity on war crime trials swung... Obama might sing a different tune. He has slow played a lot of issues until the political winds blew in his favor. His private thoughts aren't easy to read into his public words and his public words tend to be guarded on many issues. This issue more than any other in my opinion. The question remains, we all know there were crimes committed, but damn it we still want to see this report. As it stands now Obama's main actions on this could basically be undone by the next president that thinks Torture is a good idea. This and the slow play of GITMO just make you wonder how long do you have to wait to do something on this issue? I mean releasing a report is the least the administration could do at this point in the presidency. Hey it might even remind your voting base why they want to get out and vote in November...

. . .still, is the WH hiding their own actions or just protecting their own prerogative to employ some of the objectionable and legally questionable actions that the Bush administration engaged in?

After all, this administration did, inherit/adopt much of Bush's 'terror war' and actually escalated a great deal of it - maybe out of what they viewed as a necessity; something along the lines of what the President was hinting at Friday night.

If we walk the question of an actual 'cover-up' back a bit, we can still wonder just what is motivating this administration to slow or obscure information they know well is contained in the torture report's findings. Given that Congress isn't inclined to regard many things that average Americans might view as improper or even illegal, it's not a solid endorsement to just say that the 'Senate knows,' although I take your point on that.

Moreover, there may well be senators who know of illegalities but are restricted from revealing the report's findings because of legal restrictions on their own conduct in that investigation; on their own ability to tell it like they found it.

Maybe we need a whistleblower on this.

This is a dog and pony act, and that the White House and the Senate committee are working together to keep us from knowing the truth and prevent calls for prosecution.

. . . there are a whole host of issues, initiatives, and actions they've approved in favor of this White House and the previous administration behind closed doors.

is no shrinking violet when it comes to being a cheerleader for the CIA and the Intelligence industrial Complex..it's bad cop, good cop. Or maybe these damn politicians have made me pathologically suspicious and skeptical (which is probably a good thing).

If there was anything "juicy", the Senate would leak it ... that is how it has been for the past 6 years.

. . .I think of Sens. like Wyden and Levin who've been exceedingly critical. They could be waiting for the WH to give their final opinion or answer before jumping the gun (like I am).

Future leaks or revelations by senators with knowledge of the contents of the full report are not out of the realm of possibility if the 'executive summary' isn't as expansive or as revealing as they might expect.

Members of our own party have already called for an investigation of Brennan and the CIA's admitted interference. That road touches on the WH in some form or fashion; especially with the vote of confidence the President already expressed in his chief.

The CIA was acting outside the law and out of the President's control. I don't believe for a minute that he would condone their activities had he known about them.

The chilling part of this story for me is that President Obama is unable or unwilling to clean house. Why is that?

. . . and there are a handful of serious laws involved in the question of their conduct.

How do we know that the CIA was 'acting outside the law and out of the President's control?' Is that an established fact?

Was this answered at all, by anyone? The CIA, at one point, told the Senate committee that the WH had ordered the removal of files. Is this true?

DiFi:

In May of 2010, the committee staff noticed that certain documents that had been provided for the committee’s review were no longer accessible. Staff approached the CIA personnel at the offsite location, who initially denied that documents had been removed. CIA personnel then blamed information technology personnel, who were almost all contractors, for removing the documents themselves without direction or authority. And then the CIA stated that the removal of the documents was ordered by the White House. When the committee approached the White House, the White House denied giving the CIA any such order.

he chose to have in his cabinet. When Bush refused to fire his corrupt appointees and cabinet members we KNEW without a doubt WHY. I see no difference simply because we elected this President should he choose, once again, not to fire someone who we are to believe 'embarrassed' him by committing crimes.

If he does not start firing people, then he agrees with them, probably did know what they were up to, and isn't particularly interested in what we think at all.

Catching the CIA in the act of something as egregious as spying on the senate gives all the pretext you could hope for to clean house in the intelligence establishment.

You could root out everybody in the chain and expose all the players who somehow thought spying on the senators investigating your activities was a sound plan. They also must have been arrogant enough to believe they could get away with it even if caught. And guess what? They were right!

Instead we got a tepid statement of full confidence in Brennan and now the book is closed. I really wonder who runs this thing for real because it's certainly not the people we elected.

that he NOW knows they broke the law.

There is only one way to deal with that, assuming you are someone who believes in the Rule of Law and in ethics and that is to fire them, then direct the DOJ to initiate a full investigation of the crimes and proceed with prosecutions.

But I keep thinking we live in an actual Democracy where the Rule of Law is applied equally, where no one is above the law, a place like Iceland eg.

So I would be shocked if anyone is fired. And if that happens, then we know he knew his CIA Director broke the law and he wanted him there anyhow. I see no other way to look at this.

We already know he knows that his NSA Chief lied blatantly to Congress, yet he was not fired. Another old Bush loyalist, Clapper.

Unless, he is under some kind of threat. That would be the only reason.

should have worked to investigate and reign in the Bush Administration when they had the chance. Instead of "Impeachment is Off the Table"....they should have worked together (behind the scenes in committees) to hold people accountable in Bush Government (CIA/FBI/NSA, etc.) so that we didn't end up in the corrupt mess we are in.

BUT....we now know that spying has been going on for a long time. Who knows how they are compromised? And the ones that serve the longest are probably the most vulnerable to compromise....so no one was going to "go there" and start anything that would open up that dirty laundry because it would implicate themselves or their colleagues in their compromise.

Why Can't Obama Do More with His Presidential Authority?

He could be under threat, as some have speculated, because of activities that have been done under his own Presidential Authorization with the Drone Strikes and perhaps authorization or continuation of other torture sites or activities (begun under Bush/Cheney...whether he approved or not. He could always rely on "I didn't know what they did in torturing or were doing" defense (because maybe he didn't) but his lawyers are telling him not to open himself up to the questions of: "what did he know and when did he know it."

I've felt from the beginning that Obama figured out that he was going to have to distance himself from what our Government (CIA/FBI/NSA, etc.) was doing under Bush Admin and before. Maybe he was well aware that those agencies were already rogue (from his Senate days) and knew he would have little power to stop anything they had done or were currently doing. Perhaps that's why he kept so many Bush Admin. holdovers and reappointed others) and maybe he was "advised" by the "PTB" to put a "do nothing" like Eric Holder in place to to make sure any serious investigations wouldn't move forward protecting his own security throughout his Presidency.

He could help keep his own hands clean (plausible denial) if he just ignored what was going on and devoted his full time to the Financial Crisis (Wall Street Bank Bailouts, Jobs and the Economy) plus the struggle of pushing through the Affordable Health Care Act. He would let the Generals and Think Tanks/Policy Institutes run the wars and not get involved in the "dirty details." If he was needed to authorize a Presidential Action he would make sure that there were enough legal loopholes built-in so that he could use "plausible deniability" if questions ever came up down the road.

He's a young man with a lovely family and great prospects for his future after the Presidency. Why would he throw that away? Congress should have cleaned it up in the first place and they didn't....so there's little he could have done.

I think he will wait until enough pressure builds for Brennan to resign. He doesn't feel comfortable about firing people ...as many others have said. But, there was huge pressure on Clapper...and Clapper wouldn't go....so, it's hard to know about Brennan.

I'm a republican now?

Unfrickenbelievable.

Where are there republicans asking these questions? There aren't any, because the bulk of the evidence obviously implicates members of their own party.

You need new material, Sid.

personally attacked. I have developed a system in order to decide whether or not I should be happy or upset by personal insults. If it is someone for whom I have respect, then I would be upset. That hasn't happened so far. If not, I take it as a compliment and am glad to have it affirmed that the attacker and I have zero in common.

Thanks for your input it is appreciated by a majority here I'm sure.

who ordered, rationalized and conducted torture. Why would a republican accuse Obama of covering up the war crimes of their own party?

Regardless, your opinion of US politics will be relevant when you become a US citizen.

Republicans won't get you very far. Smells like desperation.

When we start calling this Libertarian Underground.

… Do you really want those answers or are you looking for someone to back your assertions up?

I get it, you seem to think this was a cover up. Leave me out of your *we* part.

. . . to answer the questions I raised.

Is it 'libertarian' to expect the president to follow the law and be held accountable to it? Is that 'libertarian' now?

Should I hand in my Democratic registration?

Do better.

and I actually have been reading the posts on this thread.

You seems to want people to start calling this a 'cover-up' by the Obama White House. I don't.

aI have seen these calls from another part of the political spectrum. I never suggested anything to make you believe this:

. . . I wouldn't really know, not bothering to give their party any of my attention.

So, you don't appear to believe there's any Democratic interest in labeling the Obama administration's efforts as a cover-up?

That's a reasonable response.

I'm sorry if I misread your intentions in labeling it a 'libertarian' interest.

the CIA however, well that might be worthy of another discussion. I believe that the CIA is hiding a lot of crap. I also believe that the Obama admin has had shit placed on the doorsteps of the WH.

As far as a cover up? I'm not there.

and with all respect, I don't ever like responses (either in the beginning or in the middle) the begin with *So* … that little two letter word always means an assumption is being made and put upon a poster.

I will not back away from my first response in this thread.

You asked me a question (in this specific response) that only you can answer. What I know is that many libertarians are asking the same question as your OP has done.

This is DU. My first post in this thread stands.

. . . my defensive interpretation and response was wrong.

Thanks for your answer.

. . . like the way they've paved the way for accountability on these issues of torture and other 'extra-constitutional' abuses of the law.

Take a look at Chambliss and co's rebuttal to the upcoming report. They're no allies in any effort to hold anyone accountable for the abuses.

while embracing all they opposed.

That old wagon circle has expanded to Bush and fucking torture while spinning, rationalizing, misdirecting, deflecting, projecting, and defending us all back to the dark ages and pretending to be paragons of loyalty when they are really worse than sell outs because they do it for nothing. At least Judas got quite a few pieces of silver.

So many are so used to defending reflexively, they don't even know what they're defending. Or worse, perhaps they do.

They are defending TORTURE by agreeing with the President, that sometimes people were "scared"

They are defending the BUSH administration because "the far left" is being "sanctimonious" in criticizing the White House for working with the CIA to redact the report.

I just don't understand it. How on earth could any Democrat, any person for that matter, defend those things?

After all, covering up anything is impeachable.

My regard for you has suffered immensely. I no longer have any respect.

. . .I have no idea what the president is obscuring. There's still a possibility that he'll be more open and revealing of what he's seeking to block from the public view than he has so far.

The questions I raised fall far short of any suggestion of impeachment. We really haven't gotten a sufficient explanation for the WH and CIA obstinacy, so far, in allowing this investigation and it's findings to become public.

There's a history since 2009 of this WH standing in the way of a full public accounting of the Bush-era abuses; including this President's refusal to press any further for prosecutions of anyone involved. That deserves some accounting and explanation, as well.

choose to be blind.

Republicans do the exact opposite, they want no questions asked of their chosen 'leaders'. Thank the gods we on the Left, who are responsible for almost every good thing this country has been known for, generally WILL ask questions, even of those WE elected.

How come you didn't know that simple fact? I hate it when I have to explain Democrats on a Dem forum.

by allowing them to redact the report that was headed by a Democratic Senator? Can you really, in your heart of hearts say it's ok for the White House to work with Bush administration CIA to redact this report? This is not Republicans meddling, it is the White House, run by Democrats.

I just love it when a BOGer shows their ass.

The BOG isn't a place, it's state of mind.

sad to see supposed Dems condoning these activities.

And ROFL smilies in torture threads.

Really, I think this is the last thing Obama wants to be dealing with right now. He says the t-word and the right goes wild. He tries to soften the blow by defending the basic motives of those who were involved on the front lines and a fair portion of the left explodes. It's a loser and it leads nowhere.

After all, it was the republicans who went after Nixon and we would not want to be seen as a bunch of slackers!

After all it was really only a few "folks". Torture is hideous and those that apologize for it can not claim to have Democratic principles. '

But you will look good in Sid's eyes.

this isn't a bipartisan coverup? I don't understand defenders of the Obama administration's conduct. The Obama administration is displaying open contempt for the public. Treating the public like little children who need not know what the adults have been up to. This sort of crap should not be defended.

One of the key conclusions in the Senate report is the fact that the torture program was not effective. If the program wasn't effective then why on earth was it implemented? Is it patriotic to torture people and then hide all the evidence that it didn't work so you can strut around bragging about your patriotism and dedication to the Homeland? People want to defend this? Why?

I think a cover-up is supposed to be happen without people knowing the cover-up is happening.

Not that these redactions are a good thing.

. . . although, I keep coming back to Brennan's CIA's conduct and the President's reluctance, so far, to rebuke him; expressing 'full confidence' in his internal investigation; and basically giving him an out for what I see as outrageous and illegal conduct that came directly from the directors office.''

Knowledge of that and an effort to conceal such criminal behavior would rise to what most consider a 'cover-up.' Knowledge of the behavior as it occurred would be worse.

There's also a question that I've been asking about whether there is some objectionable or improper behavior or actions by the Obama administration which is contained in the findings or is hinted at in the report which the President might be endeavoring to keep out of the public eye.

We know of reports (who knows if they're credible) that the administration is still engaged in renditions - and also reports that there are tortures which have been committed on our nation's behalf in other nations without the restrictions the U.S. places on that conduct. That would be something I could see the President working to conceal.

As I wrote above in response to 'the Senate already knows,' there may be legal restrictions on revealing information from the investigation independently - or Senators might not be willing to jump ahead of the President's final decision on what to reveal in the summary that he has ultimate approval on. I wouldn't be surprised to find some senators willing to reveal more at that point if they're not satisfied with what the WH allows the public to see.

Wikileaks. I bet they have a non-redacted version.

. . . individual senators might reveal what they believe should be publicly known; whatever the White House chooses to leave out of their 'executive summary.'

Thanks for the thread, bigtree.

There. Fixed it for the defenders of the (redacted).

I've told people that high crimes such as setting up torture camps are such a horrible crime that they never just go away. Crimes against humanity don't just go away, history never forgets them. The crimes may not be dealt with by corrupted political systems but the people never forget. NEVER.