Holder: No Prosecution For "Torture"

[red states rule]

Another huge disappointment for the left.

Chris Matthews may have lost that tingle right about now


EXCLUSIVE: Holder assures GOP on torture prosecution

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

President Obama's choice to run the Justice Department has assured senior Republican senators that he won't prosecute CIA officers or political appointees who were involved in the Bush administration's policy of "enhanced interrogations."

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 to favorably recommend Holder for the post. He is likely to be confirmed by the Senate soon.

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

He added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/28/exclusive-holder-assures-gop-torture-prosecution/

[bullypulpit]

Another huge disappointment for the left.

Chris Matthews may have lost that tingle right about now


EXCLUSIVE: Holder assures GOP on torture prosecution

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

President Obama's choice to run the Justice Department has assured senior Republican senators that he won't prosecute CIA officers or political appointees who were involved in the Bush administration's policy of "enhanced interrogations."

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 to favorably recommend Holder for the post. He is likely to be confirmed by the Senate soon.

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

He added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/28/exclusive-holder-assures-gop-torture-prosecution/

Holder made no such promise, an aide said, pointing to Holder's written response to Senator John Kyl:

<blockquote>Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts, and no one is above the law. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions" authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.</blockquote>

Unfortunately, the "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions", qualification hearkens back to the Nuremberg defense, "I was only following orders...". The fact of the matter is that Holder and his Justice Department have no choice in the matter. They have to follow the evidence, regardless of where, or to whom, it leads. That's how the legal system is supposed to work, and if Obama and Holder choose to do otherwise, they will be complicit in the Bush administrations crimes.

[red states rule]

Holder made no such promise, an aide said, pointing to Holder's written response to Senator John Kyl:

<blockquote>Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts, and no one is above the law. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions" authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.</blockquote>

Unfortunately, the "reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions", qualification hearkens back to the Nuremberg defense, "I was only following orders...". The fact of the matter is that Holder and his Justice Department have no choice in the matter. They have to follow the evidence, regardless of where, or to whom, it leads. That's how the legal system is supposed to work, and if Obama and Holder choose to do otherwise, they will be complicit in the Bush administrations crimes.


So Holder lied when he made the promise

I hope you guys do waste time and money going after Pres Bush and others. This will be Obama's "Hillary Care"

[moderate democrat]

I personally would not be supportive of a political witch hunt, but if laws were broken, I would not object to prosecuting those who broke them.

[bullypulpit]

So Holder lied when he made the promise

I hope you guys do waste time and money going after Pres Bush and others. This will be Obama's "Hillary Care"

No, Bond lied about his having made such a promise...<a href=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/holder-aide-we-made-no-special-promises-to-bond.php>Holder Aide: We Made No Special Promises to Bond</a>

And, unlike the Republicans with Whitewater, evidence abounds of Bush administration wrongdoing, including their own televised admissions.

[red states rule]

No, Bond lied about his having made such a promise...<a href=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/holder-aide-we-made-no-special-promises-to-bond.php>Holder Aide: We Made No Special Promises to Bond</a>

And, unlike the Republicans with Whitewater, evidence abounds of Bush administration wrongdoing, including their own televised admissions.

Oh please go into witchhunt mode BP. Like the mega pork bill, go for the throat

[moderate democrat]

I dunno...watching a few former Bush administration heavyweights being frog marched to prison for their role in torturing people might very well be good for the American soul.

[red states rule]

I dunno...watching a few former Bush administration heavyweights being frog marched to prison for their role in torturing people might very well be good for the American soul.

Yes liberal thought process is something else

Release the terrorists, but lock up the former President and members of his staff

[moderate democrat]

Yes liberal thought process is something else

Release the terrorists, but lock up the former President and members of his staff

I want to defeat our enemies and hold Americans to the rule of law. Don't YOU? Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

[moderate democrat]

No, you want to surrender and appease the terrorists - while smear your own country

I do not support surrender or appeasement, and nothing Obama has done will do either of those things. WHy do you avoid answering simple questions?

Do you want the president of the united states to support and defend the entire constitution or not?

[red states rule]

I want to defeat our enemies and hold Americans to the rule of law. Don't YOU? Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

No, you want to surrender and appease the terrorists - while smear your own country

[red states rule]

I do not support surrender or appeasement, and nothing Obama has done will do either of those things. WHy do you avoid answering simple questions?

Do you want the president of the united states to support and defend the entire constitution or not?


Oh my, the libs had a fit when pres Bush was doing this


Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool
The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.

Reporting from Washington -- The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.

The European Parliament condemned renditions as "an illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a Boeing Co. subsidiary accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.

But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.

The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the United States is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story

[moderate democrat]

can't quite get the courage up to just answer that simple question, can you?

ah well.

[red states rule]

can't quite get the courage up to just answer that simple question, can you?

ah well.

I did

You want to free the terrorists from GITMO, but toss Pres Bush in s jail cell

[moderate democrat]

I did

You want to free the terrorists from GITMO, but toss Pres Bush in s jail cell

no. you didn't. here: try again...

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

[red states rule]

no. you didn't. here: try again...

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

I think I have sumed up your position perfectly

[moderate democrat]

I think I have sumed up your position perfectly


and avoided answering the simple question yet again.

ho hum.

keep running.

[moderate democrat]

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

It seems like such a cut and dried question. I would think that EVERY American would want their president to uphold and defend the constitution. Apparently, RSR not only does NOT want that from his president, but he feels so strongly that he hands out negative reputation comments to those who do. What a patriot you are!:lol:

[Yurt]

and avoided answering the simple question yet again.

ho hum.

keep running.

....that reminds me of....

[red states rule]

but he feels so strongly that he hands out negative reputation comments to those who do. What a patriot you are!:lol:

...reminds me of someone as well......

[moderate democrat]

...reminds me of someone as well......

red...why can't you answer a simple question?

[red states rule]

red...why can't you answer a simple question?

OK

It reminds me of Manfrommaine - i.e. Rev Virgil

[moderate democrat]

OK

It reminds me of Manfrommaine - i.e. Rev Virgil

I'm not that guy. Can you answer this question:

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

[Yurt]

I'm not that guy. Can you answer this question:

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?

you can't just lie and expect people to believe you

[avatar4321]

There is a good reason for no prosecution for torture. There would actually have to be someone who was tortured before that happened.

[avatar4321]

Don't YOU want the president to uphold and defend the ENTIRE constitution?


Yes. Do you? Are you going to ask President Obama to resign so that the rest of the world and our nation doesnt have to sit through 4 more years of torture?

[moderate democrat]

Yes. Do you?
Yes. I do want my president to uphold and defend the entire constitution. I wonder why some people on here cannot make the same statement.

[Yurt]

Yes. I do want my president to uphold and defend the entire constitution. I wonder why some people on here cannot make the same statement.

what do you care what some people here say or don't say? its none of your business....

[moderate democrat]

what do you care what some people here say or don't say? its none of your business....


why do you ask me questions? My answers are none of your business!:lol:

[Yurt]

why do you ask me questions? My answers are none of your business!:lol:

you can't just lie and expect people to believe you

[moderate democrat]

you can't just lie and expect people to believe you

one can't just chase ambulances and expect to put food on the table.

[Yurt]

you can't just chase ambulances and expect to put food on the table.

:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

[moderate democrat]

:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

I changed the post from "you" to "one" in order to make the english meaning more correct. I wasn't referring to you individually.

And I happen to use the term "ambulance chaser" as many other people do, to refer to low grade attorneys who prey on accident victims.... bottom feeders of the legal profession... if the shoe fits, please feel free to wear it.

[moderate democrat]

:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

gosh...are you referring to that previous poster that you claimed you were no longer referring to, LSofS?

[red states rule]

:lol:

gee.....let me think who used to always say that....

what makes you think i chase ambulances mr. new guy?

ANSWER:

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
I haven't taken one minute of time to find out which tiny office space you are renting in San Luis Opisbo to service your dozen or so clients that you have garnered by chasing ambulances. If I had, then I would be stalking you...but in fact, the reverse is true and you have, indeed stalked me, and passed my personal information along to your even creepier butt buddies. Like I said earlier, we both better hope he is not as crazy as I think he is.

[Yurt]

gosh...are you referring to that previous poster that you claimed you were no longer referring to, LSofS?

what previous poster?

and why can't YOU answer my question....

[red states rule]

what previous poster?

and why can't YOU answer my question....

He already has Yurt

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
I can only assume that you followed the ambulances to SF General. Get any clients?

I would have to imagine that there are more qualified attorneys, so you need to be the first on the scene, eh?

[Yurt]

I changed the post from "you" to "one" in order to make the english meaning more correct. I wasn't referring to you individually.

And I happen to use the term "ambulance chaser" as many other people do, to refer to low grade attorneys who prey on accident victims.... bottom feeders of the legal profession... if the shoe fits, please feel free to wear it.

liar, your words convict you, you even accused me in another thread of doing correspondence law school....you were in fact talking directly to me

nice try...

do you care to stop the insult and debate or are you going to continue your obsession with my legal career and education?

[avatar4321]

Yes. I do want my president to uphold and defend the entire constitution. I wonder why some people on here cannot make the same statement.

Of course you do, thats why you vote for the guys that hate free speech, free relgion, the right to bear arms, states rights, free press, to name a few.

[moderate democrat]

do you care to stop the insult and debate or are you going to continue your obsession with my legal career and education?
surprise me by going first, counselor.

[moderate democrat]

Of course you do, thats why you vote for the guys that hate free speech, free relgion, the right to bear arms, states rights, free press, to name a few. I don't vote for anyone who does not pledge to support and defend the constitution. there are folks here who clearly do not care if the president (as long as he is a republican president) pisses on entire sections of that document as long as it suits their partisan political agenda.

[moderate democrat]

He already has Yurt

Originally Posted by manfrommaine
I can only assume that you followed the ambulances to SF General. Get any clients?

I would have to imagine that there are more qualified attorneys, so you need to be the first on the scene, eh?


those aren't my words.

[Yurt]

surprise me by going first, counselor.

wuss....no you first...no you first, i said first, no you started it..

[Yurt]

I don't vote for anyone who does not pledge to support and defend the constitution. there are folks here who clearly do not care if the president (as long as he is a republican president) pisses on entire sections of that document as long as it suits their partisan political agenda.

nobody i know pisses on the constitution, clearly you are mistaken, especially for a new member

[moderate democrat]

nobody i know pisses on the constitution, clearly you are mistaken, especially for a new member

Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

[moderate democrat]

** crickets chirping **

why am I not surprised?

[Yurt]

wow a whole 16 minutes and you're pissing you're pants with anticipation

i made my statement, deal with it.

[moderate democrat]

wow a whole 16 minutes and you're pissing you're pants with anticipation

i made my statement, deal with it.

why can't you answer a simple question?

coward

[Yurt]

why can't you answer a simple question?

coward

why can't you shut up and stop the insults

especially the exact same insults as a former member....it is entirely YOUR fault that people think you are a former member, you use the same exact words and insults.

i made a statement, i am not required to answer your questions. got it, good.

[moderate democrat]

why can't you shut up and stop the insults

especially the exact same insults as a former member....it is entirely YOUR fault that people think you are a former member, you use the same exact words and insults.

i made a statement, i am not required to answer your questions. got it, good.

why can't you answer a simple question?

Of course you are not REQUIRED to, but it seems odd that you would be unable to.

[Yurt]

why can't you answer a simple question?

Of course you are not REQUIRED to, but it seems odd that you would be unable to.

has nothing to do with ability...

as i said, i made my statement, deal with it. got it, good.

[moderate democrat]

has nothing to do with ability...

as i said, i made my statement, deal with it. got it, good.

Why can't you answer a simple question?


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

Or, in other words, do you believe in the Constitution of the United States or don't you?

[manu1959]

Why can't you answer a simple question?


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

Or, in other words, do you believe in the Constitution of the United States or don't you?

virgil.....is that you.....how you been.....

[moderate democrat]

virgil.....is that you.....how you been.....

it's not me...but if this fellow virgil believed in the constitution, then he must not be such a bad guy.

[Yurt]

Why can't you answer a simple question?


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

Or, in other words, do you believe in the Constitution of the United States or don't you?

i do and have answered your questions...

[moderate democrat]

i do and have answered your questions...

please direct me to the post where you answered this question:


Do you believe that all treaties signed by our government become the supreme law of the land, even ones like the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? yes or no?

I must have missed it

[moderate democrat]

** crickets chirping **

:lol:

[Yurt]

wow, this time it only took 14 minutes for you to pee yourself

calm down

[moderate democrat]

wow, this time it only took 14 minutes for you to pee yourself

calm down

I am very calm...why can't you answer the question?

[Psychoblues]

See what I mean about idiots?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

What libs really can't stand


http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/147602.bmp