PDA

View Full Version : Obama Jockey's for the Win


Taco John
04-15-2008, 02:04 PM
Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House

Attytood's Will Bunch has a new interview with Barack Obama:

Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

Obama said that as president he would indeed ask his new Attorney General and his deputies to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted -- but he also tread carefully on the issue, in line with his reputation for seeking to bridge the partisan divide. He worried that such a probe could be spun as "a partisan witch hunt." However, he said that equation changes if there was willful criminality, because "nobody is above the law."

Read the full transcript of the exchange here.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

SBK
04-15-2008, 02:34 PM
That's a good way to appeal to conservatives for sure.

HolmeZz
04-15-2008, 02:36 PM
That's a good way to appeal to conservatives for sure.

I would hope an enforcement of the law would appeal to everybody, particularly conservatives.

penchief
04-15-2008, 02:58 PM
I would hope an enforcement of the law would appeal to everybody, particularly conservatives.

Yeah, since conservatives are all about law and order, and stuff.

I guess government corruption doesn't count. Only lies about blow jobs matter to conservatives.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 03:16 PM
Not a chance, IMO (without some kind of blockbuster revelation). I don't think Obama is as foolish as some of the people here at ChiefsPlanet and if he has any hope of being a uniter, it's not by launching a partisan witchhunt.

penchief
04-15-2008, 03:21 PM
Not a chance, IMO (without some kind of blockbuster revelation). I don't think Obama is as foolish as some of the people here at ChiefsPlanet and if he has any hope of being a uniter, it's not by launching a partisan witchhunt.

It aint' gonna be no partisan witch hunt, ala Monicagate. It'll be long overdue, is what it'll be.

mlyonsd
04-15-2008, 03:29 PM
It aint' gonna be no partisan witch hunt, ala Monicagate. It'll be long overdue, is what it'll be.

So if an inquiry comes back with nothing will you be here to admit you were wrong about your suspicions?

SBK
04-15-2008, 03:37 PM
Not a chance, IMO (without some kind of blockbuster revelation). I don't think Obama is as foolish as some of the people here at ChiefsPlanet and if he has any hope of being a uniter, it's not by launching a partisan witchhunt.

This is what I was saying. I suppose if Obama is looking to secure the tin-foil hat crowd he'll win their votes. If Obama wants to be seen an a uniter and does this he's dumber than most of us give him credit for. :evil:

Mr. Laz
04-15-2008, 03:40 PM
like the witchhunt for Bill Clinton


Dems have got to stop trying to appeal to GOP ... they will NEVER cooperate, so just stop trying and do what you think is right.

righties don't give a shite about anything except power so just move on

BucEyedPea
04-15-2008, 04:44 PM
righties don't give a shite about anything except power so just move on

Well, I like power but I could go for it. I think it would set a great precedent for America by being done in America.

noa
04-15-2008, 04:53 PM
I think it would be perfectly fine to investigate whether we willfully and criminally authorized torture and whether we covered anything up. That's all he's going for. He didn't say that we should investigate conspiracy theories, just if there is evidence of willful criminality. And there won't necessarily be such evidence, so it all could be moot.

I really doubt people are going to be pissed off because he looked for (and possibly uncovered) evidence of willful criminality in pursuing a torture agenda that the people never authorized.

BIG_DADDY
04-15-2008, 05:04 PM
ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

ClevelandBronco
04-15-2008, 05:15 PM
If anything like this happens we stand a pretty good chance of not having anyone interested in being a part of any future administration. This just may be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. And remember, I don't have penchief on ignore, so I've heard some really dumb stuff.

BIG_DADDY
04-15-2008, 05:33 PM
Yeah, since conservatives are all about law and order, and stuff.

I guess government corruption doesn't count. Only lies about blow jobs matter to conservatives.

Websters dictionary should define corruption as government. No way they go after GW. NO FRIGGEN WAY. Obamayomomma knows better too he's just postering.

BIG_DADDY
04-15-2008, 05:34 PM
Funny avatar TC. They have a bunch of old real school ads just like that in the lobby of Stanford. Heaven forbid we ever question some of the medical advice we get.

Bwana
04-15-2008, 05:36 PM
Websters dictionary should define corruption as government. No way they go after GW. NO FRIGGEN WAY. Obamayomomma knows better too he's just postering.

Without question.........

Calcountry
04-15-2008, 05:37 PM
Websters dictionary should define corruption as government. No way they go after GW. NO FRIGGEN WAY. Obamayomomma knows better too he's just postering.
Did I miss something? What is Hussein up to now?

noa
04-15-2008, 05:47 PM
If anything like this happens we stand a pretty good chance of not having anyone interested in being a part of any future administration. This just may be the dumbest idea I've ever heard. And remember, I don't have penchief on ignore, so I've heard some really dumb stuff.

It would be dumb to investigate willful criminality?

ClevelandBronco
04-15-2008, 06:11 PM
It would be dumb to investigate willful criminality?

No. That would be a good idea.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 07:05 PM
It would be dumb to investigate willful criminality?

The key question is what constitutes willful criminality? If the administration took an aggressive interpretation on a constitutional issue and relied on that interpretation only to see it struck down in the SCOTUS later on, would actions taken under that good faith interpretation be subject to criminal consideration?

BucEyedPea
04-15-2008, 07:12 PM
The key question is what constitutes willful criminality? If the administration took an aggressive interpretation on a constitutional issue and relied on that interpretation only to see it struck down in the SCOTUS later on, would actions taken under that good faith interpretation be subject to criminal consideration?

I can't believe how naive you can be. If there's enough evidence, testimony etc that they aggressively wanted to invade a country and tried to look for things to justify it, isn't that enough to show a lack of good faith? I think so. It's certainly enough to call it criminal whether they were blinded or not by other things.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2008, 07:16 PM
BTW TJ...that new avy just keeps cracking me up when I look at it.

How 'bout one for pat, that says "Trust us we're from the gub'ment" too.

patteeu
04-15-2008, 07:23 PM
I can't believe how naive you can be. If there's enough evidence, testimony etc that they aggressively wanted to invade a country and tried to look for things to justify it, isn't that enough to show a lack of good faith? I think so. It's certainly enough to call it criminal whether they were blinded or not by other things.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. We aren't even close to agreement on this.

Friendo
04-15-2008, 07:28 PM
Obama won't need to: plenty of "low-hanging fruit" for this guy to pick...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402757.html

Henry's job security courtesy of the Bushmaster Mis-Administration

chiefforlife
04-15-2008, 08:36 PM
Not a chance, IMO (without some kind of blockbuster revelation). I don't think Obama is as foolish as some of the people here at ChiefsPlanet and if he has any hope of being a uniter, it's not by launching a partisan witchhunt.

Far, from a partisan witch hunt. If you are saying that Republicans dont want to know the truth, you are wrong. There are many questions left unanswered, in fact laws were passed to make certain things legal that were not at the time of the offense. There were reasons given for war that may or may not be the truth. This deserves a full investigation. If nothing illegal was done, no harm. In fact it would be vindication? Right?

patteeu
04-15-2008, 09:10 PM
Far, from a partisan witch hunt. If you are saying that Republicans dont want to know the truth, you are wrong. There are many questions left unanswered, in fact laws were passed to make certain things legal that were not at the time of the offense. There were reasons given for war that may or may not be the truth. This deserves a full investigation. If nothing illegal was done, no harm. In fact it would be vindication? Right?

What is it you'd be investigating? Sounds like you have a fishing expedition in mind.

chiefforlife
04-15-2008, 09:34 PM
What is it you'd be investigating? Sounds like you have a fishing expedition in mind.

Fishing is great when you know the lake is stocked well!

HolmeZz
04-15-2008, 09:35 PM
cfl has been bringin' the one-liners lately. 8-)

Adept Havelock
04-15-2008, 09:52 PM
What is it you'd be investigating? Sounds like you have a fishing expedition in mind.

I suppose that is one way to try to frame it. You can't investigate without a specific allegation or it's a "witch hunt", but obtaining that specific allegation is out of bounds as a "fishing expedition".

Saint Yossarian would be proud.

wazu
04-15-2008, 10:09 PM
All presidents should be impeached by the opposing party, and some should even be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the opposing party. It just kind of goes with the gig.

ChiefaRoo
04-15-2008, 10:13 PM
I can't believe how naive you can be. If there's enough evidence, testimony etc that they aggressively wanted to invade a country and tried to look for things to justify it, isn't that enough to show a lack of good faith? I think so. It's certainly enough to call it criminal whether they were blinded or not by other things.

I agree with Pea, I want Hillary and John Kerry and the rest of those war authorizers put in prison.

And you call Patt naive. heh.

Logical
04-15-2008, 10:18 PM
Fishing is great when you know the lake is stocked well!I have to agree this is a great line.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2008, 10:35 PM
I agree with Pea, I want Hillary and John Kerry and the rest of those war authorizers put in prison.

And you call Patt naive. heh.

pat believes in govt too much for a conservative and small "l" Libertarian. That's what I'm talkin' about since he assumes good faith on this administration's behalf.

But hey, the rest of congress, at least who has not truly repented, should be punished somehow for transferring their authority to Bush. Let's vote 'em out. I did. But Bush/Cheney are most responsible.

BucEyedPea
04-15-2008, 10:39 PM
All presidents should be impeached by the opposing party, and some should even be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the opposing party. It just kind of goes with the gig.

I actually agree. We can't just call an election in our system but impeachment is a tool of censure and removal ( if it goes that far). Per what I've read of the Founder's words it can be used for incompetence because "crimes" does have the same meaning as in criminal law. They're endangering the republic.

patteeu
04-16-2008, 06:58 AM
I suppose that is one way to try to frame it. You can't investigate without a specific allegation or it's a "witch hunt", but obtaining that specific allegation is out of bounds as a "fishing expedition".

Saint Yossarian would be proud.

Explain to me how it makes sense that you have to investigate to come up with the specific allegation that will justify an investigation?

And it should take more than a specific allegation to launch an investigation of this type. It should take a credible specific allegation of clear wrongdoing/criminality. Not the kind of hyperbolic, rumor-based charge that floats around the leftwing blogosphere or that comes straight from al Qaeda propagandists.

If there hasn't been a justification for Congress to pursue an impeachment, there's not a justification for a post-election witchhunt unless some seriously incriminating new evidence comes to light.

Taco John
04-16-2008, 08:53 AM
I think it's awesome that you relate the left wing blogosphere with al Queda propagandists. Hell, I didn't even know that there was such a thing as al Qaeda propagandists...

patteeu
04-16-2008, 09:06 AM
I think it's awesome that you relate the left wing blogosphere with al Queda propagandists. Hell, I didn't even know that there was such a thing as al Qaeda propagandists...

They say you learn something new everyday:

Al Qaeda 'propagandist caught' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.capture/index.html)

Sunday, October 16, 2005; Posted: 5:33 a.m. EDT (09:33 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A propaganda cell leader for Al Qaeda in Iraq was captured in a raid on a suspected terrorist safe house in Karabilah last month, Multi-National Forces said in a statement issued Sunday.

Yasir Khudr Muhammad Jasim al-Karbali, also known as Abu Dijana, was apprehended in the September 25 raid, the military said.

He was the senior Al Qaeda in Iraq propaganda cell leader for Karabilah, Al Qaim and Husaybah, the statement said.

"Abu Dijana's cell consisted of photographers who used video and still photograph images to document insurgent attacks against Iraqi citizens and Iraqi and Coalition Forces," according to the statement.

"Local Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders notified Abu Dijana of impending attacks in the area, at which time he would contact his terrorist cell members and provide them with equipment and supplies needed to record the attacks."

Abu Dijana later collected the photographs and video and forwarded them to other Al Qaeda in Iraq propaganda officials for their use, the military said, and the images were made into terrorist propaganda products for distribution through print and Web sites.

Logical
04-16-2008, 09:22 AM
They say you learn something new everyday:
I guess I would like to see one of the links to those supposed blogs.

patteeu
04-16-2008, 09:42 AM
I guess I would like to see one of the links to those supposed blogs.

:spock: You've got to be kidding me.

Here are just a couple of molecules shaved off the tip of the iceberg:

TheRawStory - Ralph Nader: George Bush a 'recidivist war criminal' (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Nader_George_Bush_recidivist_war_criminal_0317.html)

Huffington Post - Is George Bush Guilty of War Crimes...and Who Cares? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/is-george-bush-guilty-of-_b_26669.html)

go bowe
04-16-2008, 01:06 PM
So if an inquiry comes back with nothing will you be here to admit you were wrong about your suspicions?it depends on who's conducting the inquiry, doesn't it? :p

go bowe
04-16-2008, 01:41 PM
The key question is what constitutes willful criminality? If the administration took an aggressive interpretation on a constitutional issue and relied on that interpretation only to see it struck down in the SCOTUS later on, would actions taken under that good faith interpretation be subject to criminal consideration?possibly...

the key question is what constitutes torture under u.s. law (not just the geneva conventions)...

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html) (18 U.S.C. 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm)...

willfully violating OUR statute(s) on the matter of torture is not excused by claiming to have followed an order or policy which is in itself illegal...

the most famous example of this was the standard mantra of war criminals from the nazi regime - i was just following orders...

i don't think that defense works any better now than it did in the war crimes trials after wwII...

if the war crimes act can be ignored by an administration based on some good faith argument or an opinion of the justice department, then why can't any u.s. statute be ignored whenever that administration claims good faith to justify their allegedly illegal acts? /jaz (or a more gentle penchief)...

patteeu
04-16-2008, 03:04 PM
possibly...

the key question is what constitutes torture under u.s. law (not just the geneva conventions)...

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html) (18 U.S.C. 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm)...

willfully violating OUR statute(s) on the matter of torture is not excused by claiming to have followed an order or policy which is in itself illegal...

the most famous example of this was the standard mantra of war criminals from the nazi regime - i was just following orders...

i don't think that defense works any better now than it did in the war crimes trials after wwII...

if the war crimes act can be ignored by an administration based on some good faith argument or an opinion of the justice department, then why can't any u.s. statute be ignored whenever that administration claims good faith to justify their allegedly illegal acts? /jaz (or a more gentle penchief)...

Any administration could do it with any law, but the argument that they're acting in good faith reliance on an inherent constitutional power is stronger in some cases than in others. . And if the people really didn't believe that good faith was present, then they would be free, through their representatives in Congress, to impeach.

I'd have to have pretty substantial evidence that the actions were taken in bad faith before I'd agree that any criminality should attach. Congress passes unconstitutional laws with some regularity. Often, people suffer substantially under those laws before they are overturned. We don't hold Senators and Representatives to full account for the constitutional misjudgments they make and sometimes there isn't even much of a pretense of good faith involved. It's not that uncommon for lawmakers to pass legislation that they understand will probably be overturned by the courts.

Since the Congress isn't supreme to the Presidency and since the Supreme Court doesn't decide issues prospectively, the President's interpretation of the Constitution is just as valid as that of the Congress, IMO. If we start down the path of hunting for "war crimes" on the basis of such outrages as 3 cases of non-lethal, non-physically-damaging waterboarding under a program that was routinely reviewed by a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders, we're going to both (a) exacerbate rather than heal the political divide in this country, and (b) tie the hands of future presidents making it more difficult for them to take moderately aggressive and decisive action when we are someday faced with another major threat.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 03:10 PM
possibly...

the key question is what constitutes torture under u.s. law (not just the geneva conventions)...

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2441.html) (18 U.S.C. 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm)...

willfully violating OUR statute(s) on the matter of torture is not excused by claiming to have followed an order or policy which is in itself illegal...

the most famous example of this was the standard mantra of war criminals from the nazi regime - i was just following orders...

i don't think that defense works any better now than it did in the war crimes trials after wwII...

if the war crimes act can be ignored by an administration based on some good faith argument or an opinion of the justice department, then why can't any u.s. statute be ignored whenever that administration claims good faith to justify their allegedly illegal acts? /jaz (or a more gentle penchief)...

I recently ran across an article that referred to an interesting precedent. U.S. v. Lee, 744 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1984). Just thought it might be of interest to you.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticlePrinterFriendlyNLJ.jsp?id=1205322358243

xbarretx
04-16-2008, 03:12 PM
I have to agree this is a great line.

or if you have dynamite for bait ;)

BIG_DADDY
04-16-2008, 03:27 PM
Did I miss something? What is Hussein up to now?

What's laughable is that some people actually believe this guy can get elected.

SBK
04-16-2008, 04:12 PM
What's laughable is that some people actually believe this guy can get elected.

No doubt.

Of course if he gets the nomination and loses in November we'll have years of hearing that it must have been cheating, or how he was robbed.

Logical
04-16-2008, 09:35 PM
:spock: You've got to be kidding me.

Here are just a couple of molecules shaved off the tip of the iceberg:

TheRawStory - Ralph Nader: George Bush a 'recidivist war criminal' (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Nader_George_Bush_recidivist_war_criminal_0317.html)

Huffington Post - Is George Bush Guilty of War Crimes...and Who Cares? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/is-george-bush-guilty-of-_b_26669.html)So you are saying those sites are run by Al Quada or are major AQ distribution sites?:spock:

Abu Dijana later collected the photographs and video and forwarded them to other Al Qaeda in Iraq propaganda officials for their use, the military said, and the images were made into terrorist propaganda products for distribution through print and Web sites.

Logical
04-16-2008, 10:07 PM
What's laughable is that some people actually believe this guy can get elected.
Sorry you feel that way, I disagree. I am pretty close to deciding on him over John. McCain's plan to run Bush III has almost sealed it. Sort of sad, when the conservative hated him I was pulling for him, now not so much.:grr:

chiefforlife
04-16-2008, 11:07 PM
Sorry you feel that way, I disagree. I am pretty close to deciding on him over John. McCain's plan to run Bush III has almost sealed it. Sort of sad, when the conservative hated him I was pulling for him, now not so much.:grr:

Colon Powell would be the only candidate that could bring me back to the Republican side.
We will save you a seat, IL.

HolmeZz
04-16-2008, 11:23 PM
What's laughable is that some people actually believe this guy can get elected.

Heh. What's laughable is some people didn't actually think he could win the nomination. I don't know how much salt you want us to take with your predictions, BD. :p

Here's you the day Barack announced he was running - January 16th, 2007.

He will lose.

At what point? Primaries? General election?

Primaries.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=156809

banyon
04-16-2008, 11:25 PM
Heh. What's laughable is some people didn't actually think he could win the nomination. I don't know how much salt you want us to take with your predictions, BD. :p

Here's you the day Barack announced he was running - January 16th, 2007.


http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=156809

Hey, that's pretty impressive sans search function. :)

HolmeZz
04-16-2008, 11:26 PM
I remembered BD saying it, so I just googled the thread.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 02:38 AM
So you are saying those sites are run by Al Quada or are major AQ distribution sites?:spock:

:spock: Does that seem like what I'm saying?