The right to torture now legal.

If Congress WONT do it, it becomes the responsibility of the Judiciary.
I think Kennedy and Beyers both understand that.
=)

that since Obama refused to investigate and/or prosecute the Bush/Cheney gang, torture is now legal. Hell, even the current crop of GOP candidates are happy to bring it back.

Scalia and his pals are not about to let their dear, dear friends be held accountable, especially when Obama didn't.

I always felt like there was a real quid pro quo there, but who knows...oligarchy being what it is. And it will go nowhere here, either, again, oligarchy.

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀ??????ί? (oligarkhía); from ὀ?ί??? (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄ??? (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command&quot [1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.

so ultimately, it was up to Obama, and he wanted to "look forward, not backward", as I recall.

Obama was a Beltway newbie and was not going to pick a fight with Legislative out of the gate. There was definitely a quid pro quo there. It all happened before the new Democratic paint was dry in the Capitol offices.

Pelosi had tremendous power and she used it.

There is an expectation that they will coordinate their agenda in line with the goals of the administration, and consult with the administration, but if the head of the DOJ sees a smoking gun and wants to investigate, then there can be an investigation.

Afaik, I am not a lawyer.

Given the timing, she Had to have been given the Nod to go for it. Nothing that large just "happens". Protocol or no...they were not going to have a public fight? She had a large phalanx of people on that stage when she announced it.

Perception trumps (no pun intended but it works) facts in many cases. Regardless, it went unopposed.

in the legislature, they were in the Bush executive branch. So, again, not her call and not a fight with congress.

Impeachment included all of the "ventures" plus those involved. Only one person could be impeached...the rest prosecuted. But it was the the same bundle of crooks, IMO.

to order the justice department to investigate violations of national and international law (which the U.S. is bound to by treaty), not impeachment. I never used the word "impeachment".

...it won't put them where they belong.

Rec

If the BFEE were to retake the White House, would not these cases disappear
down a rabbit hole? I feel another theft coming on. Does anyone know the
latest on updating/securing our election process? How do we prevent full-tilt
fascism?

My first Barack Obama disappointment. He's unfortunately had more than a few right up to the promotion of the TPP. I voted for him twice and somehow feel like I've been fleeced.

It doesn't mean you're going to win---and if you don't win, it can get very expensive.

In this particular case justice could be served for the citizens of the United States, other countries and a lesson learned.

I say spend the fuck out of it.

Not doing it would enable more in the future to rape the country but I can see how you can be apprehensive about this.

"Love the way you like to boast about "spend the fuck out of it" when it's not YOUR money....If you were getting the bill, I suspect you'd be more circumspect. "

I've been getting the bill from the MIC for decades, as if I want to spend my money on that.

I also know how much you disparage Sanders and you're asking me about snark!?

One of your members called Sanders a pacifist in his rant the other night and that moment was a complete compliment and validation of what the Hillary crowd thinks. WAR WAR WAR!!!! Yeay Murica!!! Just join the Republicans already.

Complete hypocrisy.

I too was born at night, but not last night.

PS... yes and I have links if you want. As a matter of fact here's one right now!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=492376

But of course your always right huh?

It's easy to puff out your chest and say "Sue the bastards" but someone has to pay for the lawyers. If you were footing the bill I would wager you'd pick your battles more carefully than your "fuck/rape" language seems to imply.

Hate to tell you this--this thread is NOT ABOUT SANDERS. Not everything is about feeling that bern, ya know?

This is about the Bush administration's overreaches, back when Sanders was sitting quietly in the House, voting to pay that "MIC" of yours, year in and year out.

What's "complete hypocrisy" is your pointless name calling and aspersion casting at me; completely undeserved, too.

Tell you what--when you pay a lawyer to sue a Bush administration official, and get a favorable decision, send me a haughty PM if you'd like.

Like I said, you can sue a ham sandwich--getting a decision is the tricky bit.

express myself, or cast aspersions on fellow DUers who don't enthusiastically cheerlead my pipe dreams. Your latest comment is just charming:

"Keep going...."

You're the one with the meandering, hot-breathed invective, not me!

I don't think the mechanism was in place though, as it was in this case, to prevent one suing someone for farting on the subway. That seems a relevant contrast.

Still (and just because I say this does not mean I am "happy" about it--DU does tend to roll that way, though), I think it is a tough, rough, and HIGH bar that they are setting, here. These guys are protected to no small extent by their status while in government, their "official capacity." Trying to sue them as private citizens? I don't see that flying. I can't see how they'd be able to get to that descriptor when "official capacity" colored their every move.

And if they are tried as "government officials" then "the government" will have to cough up for their defense, and do so vigorously. This ain't just a little sex or fondling, here--an obviously private impropriety. There's an argument to be made (regardless of validity) that these were "wartime imperatives."

I think it is a tough sell, myself. We'll see.

Not to mention the Voir Dire.

I hope this goes all the way! It's way past time to right the wrong!

As I am sure it will.

I also want to know whether the suits will be against these folks in their official capacity (Which I think means the government would pick up their legal tab as well as pay for any judgements) or whether the suits are against them as private individuals.

The suits alone, regardless of whether the plaintiffs win or lose could certainly go a long way both opening eyes and re-branding the Bush administration.