Rachel Maddow Show: Jonathan Turley on War Crimes

Run time: 06:42 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNoVjrOJmM   Posted on YouTube: January 10, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 10, 2009 By DU Member: Gregorian Views on DU: 1964

 
The rest of the world knows.

This is an important interview. Near the end, Mr. Turley spells out clearly just where we stand with respect to the the rule of law, the existing rule of The Constitution.

There is nothing new. And as such, war crimes have been committed.

Follow with indictments and imprisonment

Let's do the right thing so that we can hold up our heads once again

Jonathan Turley is a brilliant, welcome light. Of course we have to look to the future and hopefully not disgrace ourselves as we have in the past. But, we must also clear the slate and acknowledge that war crimes have been committed by these Bush war criminals. The whole world would back Obama on investigating, prosecuting, convicting and imprisoning people who are guilty.

Otherwise, we're gonna be subjected to endless news clips of happy criminal Bush mowing his new lawn, Laura hosting barbecues, daughter Barbara's eventual wedding, vacationing in Kennebunkport, ad nauseum. As if he left office with honor instead of disgrace.

K&R

PB

Just a few more days left for King George to issue pardons. It takes time to clear a pardon. So I'm guessing Wednesday is drop deadline day.:smoke:

needs to stay on the front page all day for those who missed it last night.
So here's another kick.

This is the question I most look forward to being answered.

What IF Congress rolls over, once again, for the lamest of presidents and vice presidents and does nothing about their crimes. Mr. Turley spells it out quite succinctly, and I paraphrase, "how are these mother fuckers gonna travel?"

Congress thinks they can sweep this shit under the rug...maybe those who do not want to prosecute war crimes should be placed on the "wanted" posters in foreign lands.

Torture-N-Chief have done would be under the prison by now. Obama need to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute WAR CRIMES.

he was at a dinner/meeting, his security took him straight to the airport before anyone could get there to arrest him. Turley is smart, I agree with him, if we don't step up before another nation does and do something, we will look like fools. http://www.wisecountyissues.com

This is my thinking on this. First, Obama came out during campaign and said he was (PARAPHRASING) "open to investigating/going after individuals responsible for war crimes or other illegal activities". Then, he later stepped back from this saying he would not go after these individuals because the priorities of the country are a priority. OK. I agree. This is a valid point. Getting our economy back on track is indeed a priority. However, I think something else may be at play here.

I believe that Mr. Obama is much smarter than many people believe. He is a Constitutional Law graduate. He agrees with the principles of the Constitution--and not a gerrymandered version of what our Framers established.

Having said this, I believe the President-Elect may be engaging in a bit of a mind-game (not the Jedi kind of mind-tricks), but old fashioned phycololgy.

If Duffus pardons his criminal friends (which could happen), Bush has just admitted his guilt. This is a catch-22 at work here. If he does not pardon, Bush is playing (possibly a losing hand) of poker. Because Bush and Darth Vader are such arrogant bastards, I think they are just daring Obama to prosecute them. I suspect that Cheneys thinking may be that Obama will be to caught up with the economy that he will not have the time to go after the Bush crime family. I could be wrong on this, but I believe it is a valid guess of Darth Vaders thinking.

Obama, I believe, is trying not to "show his hand" (as you always do in poker). In other words, Obama is not reveling his intentions until after Jan 20. If no pardon from the duffus in chief, then its, "I GOTcha"!!!

I believe, since Obama knows the Constitution, and what it means, if he is pushed hard enough, he will turn the dogs lose. And from what I'm reading lately, there are a lot of dogs that want bushes, cheneys, dumsfeld, and gonzo's rear-end in the worst way. What I would really like to see is putting the Bush Crime Family in the streets of Spain when they let the bulls run. Only in this case, make the streets really narrow and limited to a 2-block radius. That would a show worth seeing.

At least not from the legislative or executive branch. The rendition program actually started under Clinton in 1995. Any investigation into war crimes, if it is a serious investigation, will end up going back to the Clinton white house and possibly indict Clinton, Gore, as well as several higher ups in his administration for their role in torture. Also all the dems who helped cover up these acts in the Bush admin could be culpable.

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2005/12/cia_rendition_p.html

Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, has told Die Zeit that the US administration had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system.

"President Clinton, his national security adviser Sandy Berger and his terrorism adviser Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al Qaeda," Mr Scheuer said.

"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'."

Mr Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, says he developed and led the "renditions" program.

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/backgrounders/2008-01-08/extraordinary-rendition/

3. Legality

In 1993, Richard Clarke, the former chief of counter-terrorism on the U.S. National Security Council urged the administration of President Bill Clinton to conduct the first extraordinary rendition. According to Clarke, Al Gore admitted the program’s illegality, but urged Clinton to go ahead with the practice covertly.<7> There are, however, numerous legal issues involved in the extraordinary rendition process, and it is uncertain which issue or issues Gore felt illegal.




Anyway, I support investigations and feel anyone of any party should be held accountable for breaking the law. But realistically a serious investigation is not going to come from democratic politicians because any serious investigation will find some of them complicit in crimes or it will be full of coverups so only republicans are found guilty. Either way its not going to be a real investigation. Obama isn't going to conduct investigations that could put Clinton and Gore in prison as well as Cheney and Bush.

Realistically, its best to (I know little about the legal system but this is my view) go through international or domestic judicial systems rather than democratic politicians in the executive and legislative branches. My expectation is Obama will call for 'healing' in the form of focusing on the future and will try to cover it up.