"Asked about investigating CIA torture in 2009, Obama replied that "it’s important to look forward and not backwards." Obama admitted that "we tortured some folks" earlier this year, but he didn't call for those responsible to be punished."

Of course HE can't prosecute anyone. But he can encourage Congress to do it.

I see people complain HE hasn't closed Gitmo yet too. It shouldn't require explaining that they don't directly and exclusively mean HE himself. But he can push for it. In the case of the torturers, he hasn't even done that.

requires the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

"Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" part of all three presidential oaths he took.

are not the same things.

Obama should have prosecuted for single payer..... How would that have turned out in real life?

It wasn't true for Gitmo either until the President signed his own constitutionally dubious hand cuffs into law around the 20th of May, 2009.

Did he need funding authorized for the proposed new supermax? Absolutely.

Could he have gone ahead with trial proceedings, transferred, or released every captive? You bet your ass he could just as his predecessor had done hundreds of times.

In this case, I don't think there is even this consideration. No dicey law signed (inexplicably if one is serious, better override this veto and in vain because there would be no one there) as a defense. Nor any random building project required.

What exactly are you presenting as the legal authority obstacle here? You think federal prosecutions are acts of Congress?

so interesting.....

You are actually decrying the punishment of a man who publicly endorsed waterboarding, and participated in it.

That's different. VERY different.

I'm decrying the fact that, along with Kiriakou, the rest of the goddamned scum behind the torture that went on are not being prosecuted for it either:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025936740

Sure Kiriakou is being punished. But for the WRONG thing.

you've chosen to champion.

Now. If you're hellbent on attacking me, here's the thing:

I TOLD you what my intent is with this post and that is to 'decry' (your word) the LACK of prosecution and punishment for those who participated in (or supported) torture. In fact, I posted another thread here about the same thing ie: that there will unfortunately be no prosecutions.

YOU choose to TELL ME what my intent is - outright stating that my intent is to support (ie: "champion" in YOUR word) this creep. I don't give a damn who he is or HOW you want to describe his reveal of the torture. THE FACT IS THAT HE IS NOT BEING PROSECUTED FOR SUPPORTING TORTURE -- but rather for telling about it. And that IS. DIFFERENT.

Here is the game you're playing with me here:

TELLING someone what their intent is, what they're doing, why they did it, etc. -- as if you know their heart and mind and can read their mind is very handy if you're just looking to attack or criticize someone. That's what you've just done to me.

YOU TOLD ME what my intent was with this post. And again even after I made it clear to you that you are WRONG about that, you continue.

Very interesting. And very abusive. I've set men out on the curb for the trash pickup for treating me that way.

As for YOU - I'm just going to block you for it. I will not tolerate your abuse. Find someone else to attack - find someone else here whom you can TELL what they think, why they posted something and what they meant by it -- then you can conveniently attack them for what YOU told them their intent was with their post (nevermind what it truly was - that is evidently irrelevant to you as it is to most abusers). That's how abuse works. And that's what you just did.

Bye!

a DA convict my client on perjury charges after losing an attempted murder trial.

And you know what? The victim was just as happy his ass was in jail.