The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: RobJohnson on August 22, 2009, 11:27:55 AM
-
kpete (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:16 PM
Original message
Nadler: Obama Violating Law By Not Investigating Bush
Source: Huffington Post
Nadler: Obama Violating Law By Not Investigating Bush
Even as the issue of torture appears likely to burst back onto the public agenda next week -- thanks to the much anticipated release of an internal CIA report -- one of the most progressive voices in Congress is arguing that the Obama White House has a legal obligation to investigate the Bush torture legacy.
New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Huffington Post that he believed that President Obama would be breaking the law if he decided to oppose launching investigation into the authorization of torture.
"If they follow the law they have no choice," Nadler said in an interview this past weekend.
The logic, for Nadler, is straightforward. As a signatory of the convention against torture, and as a result of the anti-torture act of 1996, the United States government is obligated to investigate accusations of torture when they occur in its jurisdiction.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/nadler-obama-v...
:banghead:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4026539
Chemisse (698 posts) Fri Aug-21-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Much as I would have loved to have seen Bush impeached
It would not have succeeded and it would've made the Dems look vindictive and even destructive. Potentially we could have lost this last election over it.
I'd rather have Obama in office AND some prosecutions of the Bush crowd.
No Elephants (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-22-09 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
42. You don't impeach a war criminal, not to mention his oath to uphold the Constituion, because
you fear you or your party won't be re-elected?
Sorry, that is no profile in courage. If johnson did not put principle above party, we would have no Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You keep the Rule of Law not because everyone obeys the law. You keep it because you punish those who don't, especially if they are in leadership positions. You don't foster respect for law or preserve the rule of law by punishing only the guy who hands a note to a bank teller.
Stick a fork in the rule of law in this country.
:rotf:
It's a big thread, and getting bigger.
-
Bushhate Derangement Syndrome dies hard.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/Liberal%20Baiting/Looney%20tunes/BDS11.jpg)
-
When is Congressman Nadler going to join Cindy Sheehen and all the primitives in protest at the home and/or vacation spot of Dear Leader?
.
-
TOAST!!!!!! LEGS!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111
-
What the rotund Congresscritter from my home state (but a whole bunch south of me!) doesn't seem to understand is this: What goes around, comes around. As you want to investigate, so shall you (or your side) be investigated--and treated far worse than you treated those who "perpetuated the 'crimes.'"
Obama seems to understand this. He makes noises in the directions that the 'bats want him to go, but it is highly likely that said administration has committed offenses already that would result in felony convictions, so he doesn't want to set a precedent by which David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, or anyone else in his administration would be prosecuted (and sent to Marion, Illinois, or Leavenworth, Kansas, to name two maximum security Federal prisons) by a future administration. Because it would happen.
-
So Rep Nadler will submit articles of impeachment against Obama is the president fails to investigate, right?
Or is Rep. Nadless exempt from his own pontifications?