Senate to announce investigation of torture under Bush, senators say

Senate to announce investigation of torture under Bush, senators say

rawstory.com

The Senate is quietly preparing plans to investigate allegations of torture under President George W. Bush, according to comments published Wednesday by Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

The Senate Judiciary Committee could announce a hearing to consider various plans to probe allegations of torture as early as today, according to Salon's Mark Benjamin, citing Committee Chairman Pat Leahy and members of his staff.

(visit the link for the full news article)

There is plentiful evidence that Bush made false statements. Under U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 1001, Bush should receive 5 years for each count.

It is a fact that Bush authorized illegal surveillance of US citizens. Under U.S. Code : Title 50 : Section 1809, Bush should receive 5 years for each of his 45 illegal authorizations. Moreover, there is now sufficient evidence that Bush ordered torture that in some instances resulted in death. Under U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2441, Bush should receive a penalty of death.

Since all of these crimes are on record, including numerous admissions made in public, this is an open and shut case. We certainly do not need the “truth commission” to subvert justice by immunizing criminals.


rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by jhill76



Go ahead and get your hopes up.

You Bush bashers need to let go and realize that your greatest dream will never come true. If it did happen, don't you think that we would have to investigate every President and prosecute them if torture was done under their watch?

I garuntee that there is a terroist right now being tortured by someone from the US. You going to go after Obama now?

Yeah.

This is what we need to be worried about right now.

Torture has been going on long before Bush and will continue long after Obama. This is about the 50th thread i've read about someone trying to bring Bush to court . You think just because Obama closed Gitmo the torture is going to stop? Don't be so naive.

I can't believe the responses here. So people would rather have politics go on as usual? I would welcome a probe of the Obama administration and every other administration in the future as well as past Presidents if they commit crimes. Presidents aren't above the law. No matter how well intended their agendas might be. The times of "if the President does it it's legal" are over.

No one has said that, but I think we have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

What Bush did isn't our biggest concern right now....what Obama is doing now is.

Originally posted by jd140
You Bush bashers need to let go and realize that your greatest dream will never come true. If it did happen, don't you think that we would have to investigate every President and prosecute them if torture was done under their watch?

So your attitude towards the possible illegal actions of a President is: since others before Bush did it, why should we start holding Presidents accountable now? Way to uphold the law and defend the Constitution...

Hey... wait a minute, aren't you one of the people that in this thread are applauding a soldier for challenging Obama's natural born status?

I guess your notion of defending the law and Constitution depends on who is/was in power. I don't think that qualifies as patriotism.

reply to post by converge


Why Bush? There have been so many presidents before him. Why start with him? It's all PR nothing more. This will go no where.

Originally posted by jd140
You Bush bashers need to let go and realize that your greatest dream will never come true.

It already has.

On topic. I hope this happens. Obama said the Justice department would investigate. I hope there's a sound investigation and the results are made public. Regardless if anyone is prosecuted, I think it will aid in transparency and let the government officials know that they can't hide under their executive privileges.

Leahy has a great plan that doesn't involve prosecution, (Although I would love to see Cheney doing the perp walk)

Originally posted by Wethesheeple
Why Bush? There have been so many presidents before him. Why start with him? It's all PR nothing more. This will go no where.

Why start with the Nazis? Do you think it was the first time a people practiced genocide? Or you think the Nuremberg trial was a "PR campaign" too?

Don't blame this on the people who are trying to investigate possible crimes now, blame the people that in the past turned a blind eye on crimes.

At most we can blame these people for only acting now, when they should've acted when crimes were being committed.

Either way, none of those are good arguments to ignore the law.

[edit on 25-2-2009 by converge]

I'm not suggesting we ignore the law, I'm suggesting we take care of more pressing issues first.

If they want to get into all of this, that's fine by me.

It shouldn't be a big concern right now though.

reply to post by converge


Good point bro
2nd line

Originally posted by nyk537
I'm not suggesting we ignore the law, I'm suggesting we take care of more pressing issues first.
If they want to get into all of this, that's fine by me.
It shouldn't be a big concern right now though.

Are you saying we can't do both? That we can't try to uphold the law and take care of our financial problems?

I don't know where this notion that we can only do one thing at once comes from, because I don't think people have much trouble accepting the fact that we are and have been involved in multiple wars at once.

Also, I think many people would disagree with you on whether dealing with possible war crimes is a "pressing issue" or not.

reply to post by converge


It's an issue for sure but there are far more pressing issues right now. If we don't correct the market some how war crimes will be the last thing you'll be worried about.

reply to post by Wethesheeple


I don't disagree with you, I just think we're able to do both.

And listen, I don't have much faith in an investigation into possible war or any other type of crimes by the Bush Administration, but it's the principle of the thing - we can't just ignore laws because we're 'busy' with something else.

I find this to be interesting.

(d) A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical statute. Pp. 757-758.

www.fa-ir.org...

If members of the UN have diplomatic immunity why shouldn't Bush.

It is true that diplomats are exempt from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host country. However, this exemption may be waived by their home country. Moreover, the immunity of a diplomat from the jurisdiction of the host country does not exempt him/her from the jurisdiction of his/her home country.

www.ediplomat.com...

Let's face it. Congress had every chance to impeach and they didn't.

I say we impeach every member of Congress for not doing their job.

This needs to be investigated and the truth uncovered-PERIOD.

The reason why EVEN NOW this is of the utmost importance? Because the current administration, despite its rhetoric, is going to CONTINUE ON THESE POLICIES.

By outing these crimes, and either A) Prosecuting, or B) Changing the current "interpretation" of legalities of such procedures (which most of the world knows are criminal), we insure that this grotequery does not carry on.

If everyone just keeps 'passing the buck' and 'moving forward', then we will never evolve past this type of criminality.

reply to post by jam321


I agree.

They had their chance.

Originally posted by jam321
If members of the UN have diplomatic immunity why shouldn't Bush.

It is true that diplomats are exempt from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host country. However, this exemption may be waived by their home country. Moreover, the immunity of a diplomat from the jurisdiction of the host country does not exempt him/her from the jurisdiction of his/her home country.

Notice the emphasis on host country. I think it's obvious why such regulation exists. Imagine for example the US diplomats working in some Islamic countries, their own lifestyle could be considered a crime in that particular country.

George W. Bush had diplomatic immunity when he traveled to foreign countries. But there's a difference between immunity from the host country's law when you're in a diplomatic mission, and international or your own country's laws.