Obama Transforms the USA Into a Banana Republic: Prosecution of Previous Admin.

It is far from over the top to recognize the error of the Left, specifically Pres. Obama, in their desire to prosecute the legal actions of the previous Bush administration.

From WSJ Opinion piece:

    Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama’s victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power…

    So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices — and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?

6 Responses

  1. So, you support torture? You think past administrations should be above the law?

  2. No.

    It is the definition of torture that has been misappropriated. We do not torture. We used enhanced interrogation techniques. This is very specific and controlled. We also put certain of our soldiers thru the same stressful situations (yes we water board some of our own soldiers) to prepare them in case they are captured and interrogated. Of course, we cannot prepare them to get their heads cut off (because that is the torture implemented by our enemies).

    BTW, many left-y politicians were well aware of the implementation of these techniques and in fact enthusiastically signed off on it. See Nancy Pelosi.

    More importantly, this worked.

  3. Unfortunately, you’re misinformed. The torture memos define waterboarding as torture. It has always been defined as torture. The difference between SERE techniques (the military waterboarding you mentioned) and the interrogations are many. Whomever supported torture should be tried and prosecuted. There is no evidence that torture works for anything. Cheney continues to say it did, but the evidence says otherwise. Nothing of validity came from the waterboarding that couldn’t have been obtained through other means. Notice the FBI hasn’t been mentioned, only the CIA and the military. That’s because the FBI, with experience in interrogation, stepped away from the program as soon as it was implemented. Why? Because they knew it was wrong. Look up the history of waterboarding. There have been a couple of court martials, and in 1983 a Texas sheriff was also prosecuted for waterboarding inmates for information. Whether waterboarding is or isn’t torture isn’t debatable. It is, and always has been. America has been torturing POWs, clear and simple. Now we have the chance to make things right by holding those involved accountable. This isn’t a partisan argument. So, whatever dems you’re talking about that supported it, then they too should be held accountable.

  4. Not really. You know that old saying, hindsight is 20/20″…

    Yes, we should hold people accountable to the law. But the law was not broken. Nor should a current Pres. look to persecute a previous administration.

    I’m glad you are for equal treatment. I don’t have that faith in these politicians. (Personally, both parties disgust me)
    “Four former CIA directors and Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence say that these methods do work.

    The claim of illegality in the Bush interrogations depends on the assumption that (1) the methods used violate congressional statutes barring torture and (2) that such statues, even if violated, can supersede the president’s constitutionally inherent war-making power, If the Obama administration does decide to proceed with prosecutions, we can all look forward to a decade of litigation of these issues. It will be curious to see whether President Obama really wishes to argue that Congress can by ordinary statute abridge his powers as commander-in-chief.

    Barack Obama may chose to become the first president to prosecute his predecessors for carrying out official duties in ways disapproved by their successors. If so, we can guarantee: He will not be the last.”

  5. Obama doesn’t get to make that decision. The Department of Justice does.

  6. Actually, he does get to make it – and he did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: