RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Turley: Obama is obstructing justice and a “war crime investigation”

This is classic Obama modus operandi: He screws the left which believed his campaign promises while placating the intelligence agencies — and keeping the always-ready-to-pounce rightwing tamped down — with his refusal to uphold his constitutional duty to enforce criminal law. As Turley says, Obama’s motive is “painfully obvious”: It’s all about politics. And the left? Those duped dopes who believed his campaign promises (titter) are STILL daintily sidestepping the clear path to blaming Obama even though they KNOW his decision is morally and legally vacant, and that Obama is directly obstructing a criminal investigation.

From the video of Jonathan Turley who is a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School: “Obama is equating the enforcement of criminal laws, which he took an oath to enforce … with an act of retribution, in some sort of hissy fit or blame game. You know, it’s not retribution to enforce criminal laws. What it is is obstruction to prevent that enforcement. And that is exactly what he has done thus far.”

“He’s trying to lay the groundwork to look principled when he’s doing an utterly unprincipled thing.”

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

MORE TURLEY — I typed as he talked:

     ”There are very few things worse for a president to do than to protect accused war criminals. And that’s what we’re talking about here. President Obama himself has said that waterboarding is torture, and torture violates at least four treaties and is considered a war crime. So the refusal to let it be investigated is to try to obstruct a war crime investigation that puts it in the same category as Serbia and other countries that have refused to allow investigations to occur. [...]

     ”He is trying to sell the idea that it is unprincipled to investigate war crimes because it’s going to be painful and, quite frankly, I think the motive is obvious. He knows that it will be politically unpopular because an investigation will go directly to the doorstep of President Bush and he knows it, and there’s not going to be a lot of defenses that could be raised for ordering a torture program.”

Oh, and Rachel Maddow’s reaction to Turley’s comments? Did you see her explode in self-righteous indignation at Obama’s blockage of a criminal investigation? Did you witness Rachel’s objections to Obama’s singular appropriation of the decision to bring criminal charges all unto himself, a la George Bush?

You didn’t see Rachel’s reaction? Huh.

She didn’t react? Wow. Well, count her among many on the left who cannot bring themselves to criticize “The One.”

*******************************

The Sad Self-Delusion of the ‘bama-Lovin’ Left

Here I make my case:

  • Andrew Sullivan, a highly vocal, longtime opponent of torture, cannot bring himself to say the “O” word at his blog at The Atlantic: “The last seven years have revealed that almost the entire American establishment views itself as immune to the moral and ethical rules it applies to every other country in the world. Now we know, at least. And you can be sure they [gotta love those vague pronouns!] will protecting each other to the bitter end.”
  • The Washington Post rationalizes Obama’s political expediency and calls it “courageous”!: “Dealing With a Disgrace – President Obama strikes a wise balance in coming to terms with the torture of terrorism suspects.
  • The New York Times editorial details the “brutal interrogation techniques” but sidesteps Obama’s moral fog.
  • Even the ACLU, in its summary of its extensive findings, “Abuse of Power: The Bush Administration’s Secret Legal Memos” — quite incredibly — gives Obama a pass on his failure to seek criminal prosecution.

Check out all the reactions via Memeorandum.com.

It’s amazing. We’re left with the conservative Jonathan Turley, Mel Goodman and No Quarter’s Larry Johnson to call out Obama’s political expediency and moral cowardice.

Here’s the most poignant aspect of Mel Goodman’s title, “Obama’s Search for a Moral Compass“: He hasn’t one.

Put aside for a moment that Obama is assuming the sole power (there’s that unitary executive power grab rearing its ugly head again) to determine if torturers should be tried for breaking criminal laws.

As Jonathan Turley puts it tersely, President Barack Obama is OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.

No president is above the law. None.

Or used to be.

I guess.

Once upon a time.

Watergate. What a quaint era in our nation’s history.

  • Arabella Trefoil

    Susan, thanks so much for this post. I know I can count on NoQuarter to keep the heat on Obama. Thank goodness there are places where we can still talk about the facts.

    The increase in troll activity here tells me that NoQuarter is doing something right! Keep it up.

    • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

      I think you’re right about the # of trolls. Ditto the # of spam posts.

      MSNBC just said that many on the left are after Obama for not taking action against the war criminals. But they didn’t specify who. I’ll have to poke around some more. Didn’t see any listed at Memeorandum. Maybe a few people at Kos or FireDogLake? Have you seen any, besides Olbermann?

      • I’mFedUp

        OMG the trolls are insane around here lately. They’re everywhere with the same old, same old troll talking points. Two straight days of the Tea Party and yesterday of trolls popping up everywhere. Yes, NQ is doing something soooooo right. Troll fear means the country is headed in the right direction LOL.

      • trixta

        Another excellent and informative article! Thank you, Susan!

  • Kathleen

    Obama lied and continues to lie along with Attorney General Holder (I attended his nomination hearings). I have heard both of them repeatedly say “NO ONE IS AVOED THE LAW” Obviously they did not mean this all at all.

    Odd that during the last eight years holding people accountable for very serious crimes started being spun as “blaming, vengeance, witch hunts, retribution” etc by Bush, Cheney, Rove. I have now heard Obama repeat this same chorus that we hear both Republicans and Democrats repeating. Seems like our congress folks may be trying to hide their own complicity in these torture crimes.

    There is no way this nation can “move forward” without holding these thugs accountable. We’re n ot talking about lies under oath about blow jobs here. We are talking about rolling over International treaties and losing our nations soul. The Bush administration sold our nations soul to the devil and now it looks like the Obama administration is refusing to call in the exorcist.

    “we were just following orders” Where have we heard this one before.

    I am sick to my stomach.

    • arran

      My Lai

      • http://noquarter foxyladi14

        yes that comes to mind…

  • NoTrollZone

    Thanks Susan. That’s also for typing out cause I can’t stand to watch those MSM Obamites.
    I’ve seen the strategy of “let’s just go forward” too many times from local government to international. Under that brilliant strategy, we would have no need for a justice system at all.
    “Heck, let’s just go forward.” There would have been no need for the trials at Nuremburg “heck, let’s just go forward.”

    On a side note:
    Not that I need to spend anytime pointing out that Andrew Sullivan’s a silly person, but we have never
    applied the same moral and ethical standards throughout the world. That’s one of our biggest damn problems. We have this nasty tendency to turn and look the other way when one of our allies is involved (or one of the multi-national corporations).
    So thanks again Susan, Mel and the gang. It is often NoQuarter that brings the news we need to know.

    • avwrobel

      That’s exactly right. Obambi says,’Let’s not look back. Let’s look forward.’ What a freakin’ jackass! Crimes need to prosecuted. Under Obambi’s logic murderers, thieves, etc should be forgiven because its all in the past, and we have to look to the future. The spineless political expediency of Precious is nauseating.

  • MrMike

    I’ve brought this up in local newspaper run forums. The standard O-bot reply is Obama is doing this so the court will give a definite ruling on this, thus limiting Presidential powers. Their argument is if Obama doesn’t try to have the case dismissed that a future presiden could do the same thing as Bush did. That’s if the court rules against him.
    I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know how these things work.
    They used the same meme to try to explain away his voting for the FISA bill with TELCO immunity after promising to fight against it.
    Anybody have a good answer for the O-bat argument?

    • PamFlorida

      Bo is trying to cover his own a**. If he lets “bygones be bygones”, the only logical conclusion is that he will do the same things and not have fear prosecution.
      Pelosi took impeachment off the table when the Dems took the majority, distracted us with the prosecution of Scooter Libby, and skillfuly avoided legal precedents that could have backfired on their future actions. After all, they craved the powers BushCo put into place. That is why the Dems supported his policies-Publicly voicing opposition, quietly voting yea.
      We need term limits.

      • http://deleted Buzz Latte

        It’s a trade. If Obama promises not to prosecute then the fed prosecutors will not look at Obama during Blago’s trial.

        Remember: Obama was the other politician besides Blagojevich that was named in the Rezko corruption trial and now look at where Blago is…

    • elise

      Twisted logic and moral bankruptcy, Mr Mike. Why would this surprise anyone since they have been making one lame excuse after another for months.

  • politicalidentitycrisis

    The tea parties are scaring the beegeezus out of all the lefties. They know if Obama is a big failure (which he already is) that he will be the last Democrat POTUS in a lifetime, if not longer. I hope that the actions of the DNC and this President and the effect of the tea parties bring about the death of the democratic party. I am writing to Michael Steele and Republicna leaders to reform the Republican party into the party that fights for liberty and freedom and tolerance for all Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. If they do that, they will become America’s party. If they don’t, maybe the tea party can form into the Independent Constitutionalist party!

    As for Obama, he will never allow the Bush administration to be investigated. It would open his administration to be investigated after the fact, if not sooner, and there is not a chance in hell he wants the truth be told about what he is doing. He know play to pay and he knows paybacks are a bitch!

    • I’mFedUp

      You are soooo right. The Fraud doesn’t want the spotlight on his illegitimacy and criminal acts, so he’s not going after Bush and Company. They have his number, and know the truth about him and what he’s doing.

      I hope he’s the last Democrat in the White House for many, many years. This mess has been intolerable, start to finish. And it will end badly I believe. I feel sorry for the AAs in this country. I’m not sure they will see another AA in the White House for a while when Obama gets exposed either.

      • b mathews

        when i said this , i was put in moderation.

      • Wisewoman

        ImFedUp. I don’t know why you keep saying “I feel sorry for the AAs in this country. I’m not sure they will see another AA in the White House for a while when Obama gets exposed either. Don’t feel sorry for me. I am an AA who is still a Hillary supporter and who has never supported the lying, cheating, race-baiting Obama. He is not an AA, he only used this idea to further his political career when convenient. He is a mixed race individual (white/black). We have yet to elect an AA president.
        I personally marched with MLK and “I” wanted the person most qualified for the job on day one. That person was Hillary!!

    • MrMike

      I consider myself a lefty in that I want a single payer health care system, stricter control of Wall Street greedmeisters, and a Social Security program that won’t self destruct (Imagine if Bush had his way and converted you SS to a 401 type account, where would you be if you retired today?)and I am against this handing money over to the bastards that caused this financial wreck.

    • Rob G in Chicago

      Hillary supporters were repeatedly derided by the O-Bots, reminding us that Bill Clinton tried to reach an accommodation with the Republicans that he would not investigate Iran/Contra issues or alleged scandals of Bush the Smarter in exchange for a more civilized detente and an abandonment of Republican efforts to make a big deal out of his alleged “bimbo erruptions”. While Bill Clinton upheld his end of the bargain, the opposition knives were never sheathed. We were told that Hillary, like Bill, would try to make some grand bargain with the devil, to seek a peaceful honeymoon with the opposition, and that only the Obie-Messiah would be willing and able to go after the BFEE (Bush Family Evil Empire) and their assorted lackeys. I would respond to these arguments by noting that Hillary would not be burned by the same untrustworthy promises of the war criminals and that Obama would be more likely to seek some non-rancorous accommodation with the opposition. This is another “I told you so” moment for Hillary supporters.

  • Diana L. C.

    When Rachel MadCow finally says, “I was wrong to support this idiot!” I MIGHT decide to watch her somewhere else but on NQ.

    I felt it was very important that we investigate the Watergate break-in when all that was going on. The country needed to feel we were still a country of laws and not one where the “leader” made the laws as he (deliberately using the masculine pronoun here) went along.

    I want this to go all the way to Bush and/or Cheney so we CAN have the notion that things can also go up to O since he seems to be following their in their path.

  • wodiej

    Has a previous President ever been investigated for things he did in office? Not that I know of. Wonder where society gets this idea of not being accountable-hmm….let me think…oh yea, from leaders. From government, to business CEO’s to parents.

    Obama does not care about what is right, all he cares about is how he looks, how it benefits HIM. And his dedicated Obots will follow him closely to lick his boots.

    • http://deleted Buzz Latte

      Nixon and Agnew come to mind, along with Mitchell.

      But back then, presidents were not above the law.

      Now: The notion that Obama doesn’t want to look backwards is an indicator that he tacitly agrees with what Bush and Co. did.

      Mr. brilliant Constitutional Law Professor guest lecturer Obama doesn’t appear to want to uphold his duty.

      It’s another condemnation ( one of many) that will be levied Obama’s way as he shuffles his way through the days.

  • Diana L. C.

    I want Rachel MadCow to apologize for supporting the Messiah before I actually watch her.

    I agree that we MUST start investigations on these matters in the courts. I am with NoTrollZone on this. Why even have courts at all. Someone robs a store…Heck, let’s just move on. Someone abuses a child….Heck, let’s just move on. If we took the same attitude about crime committed by “regular” crooks, we’d have the country truly up in arms. If a politician commits a crime, it seems to be excusable–unless, of course, it’s someone like Blago or Rezko, who are now on the outs with the current administration.

  • NoTrollZone

    Susan, you were looking for posts critical of Obama’s
    “don’t look, don’t prosecute” stand on this issue.
    Found one at KOS by Jossalyn, it has “the nuremberg defense” in its title. At Shakesville under heading about Bush’s torture memos, frontpager is critical of Obama’s stand.

  • JohnnyB

    Susan:

    It is a sign of weakness, to “rat someone out”, then say, “all is forgiven”.

    If W. was a Dem., and the Repubs just took over,
    there’d be TRIALS FOR YEARS and years. Bury the Repubs NOW forever. Bring them to trial. Going to “war” under FALSE pretenses is Treason on its own.
    Eight years of crimes and lies. We can’t move foreward without cleaning up the mess we made to get here. We tortured, we’re guilty, go to jail.

    Keep up the fight.

    • trixta

      You are sooo right, Johnny! If GWB gets away with it, so does Obama.

  • Gerald Webb

    Personally, I think Obama has struck a good balance between offering broad transparency, while avoiding prosecutions of low-level CIA officials acting on legal opinions they believed were offered in good faith. It is my opinion that the writers of these memos are the ones who should be prosecuted, and that door is still open.

    For a genuinely unbiased analysis of this issue, you can’t do much better than Glenn Greenwald–hardly an Obama-lover.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

  • arran

    Then we don’t have a president of the people, an upholder of the Constitution and the law; we have a party leader, a politician, leading the country, who therefore is not bound by any document (Bill of Rights) that establishes the rights of the people, or any international treaty that guides our war-time conduct, especially torture and abuse of captives. Since there is no balance of powers, and no examination by the media, we have as 1st Politician a person only interested in maintaining his power at any cost and with any means–lying comes to mind.

    This country is no longer a democracy; a second ruler and his “court” were inaugurated 3 months ago.

  • Calypso

    Would it be possible for Obama to sneak a look back over his shoulder and free the enlisted service members who are now incarcerated because THEY didn’t refuse to perform acts of torture in Abu Graihb(sp)?

    Seems to me these men/women were expected to disobey an order they considered illegal even though some were young kids taught to hate and kill Iraqis.

    CIA members are older, more experenced, educated and highly trained. Furthermore they can QUIT unlike those in the military.

    Obama has no MORAL compass, only what is politically expedient for HIMSELF.

    • trixta

      Calypso, this is the first I’ve heard of such incarcerations. Do you recommend any links on the matter? Thanks.

  • erin

    What is Obama afraid of? Is it a case that if he investigates the actions of Bush and his cohorts they will turn the tables on him. That is the trouble when you don’t play the game straight. Your enemies, who usually make sure they have the dirt on you, can easily turn around and cause you no end of trouble. I suspect this is the case with Obama because let’s face it there are many unanswered questions raised during the campaigns which still require investigating, starting with his eligibility to be POTUS. If only we knew the truth about the man.

  • Mercedes

    Jonathan Turley’s logic is unassailable. But we’ve definitely got a problem here. One corrupt President after another, one corrupt Congress after another, the airwaves controlled by a bunch of political whores, and a President and a Congress who want to control the internet. It may take an Act of Nature (isn’t that the legal term) to set things right.

  • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

    This seems really irresponsible to me. Letting out the memos, and not prosecuting seems to me to send out a message to the world that we do in fact *torture*.

    actions are louder than words, and Obama can say *we don’t torture*, but by releasing these memos, he is showing that we did/do and it’s ok.

    If Obama wasn’t going to prosecute, I don’t think these memos should have been released.

    It is telling the world that they did authorize torture, but we are ok with it, because we aren’t prosecuting the torturers.

    • trixta

      Your point is well taken, American Girl in Italy. I’ll go even further, this may be Obama’s passive aggressive way of warning his critics that they can be tortured too.

  • Gerald Webb

    Words are louder than actions, and Obama can say *we don’t torture*, but by releasing these memos, he is showing that we did/do and it’s ok.

    Upon releasing these memos, Obama stated the following:

    “The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.”

    I’m really not quite sure how you got to your conclusion based on what Obama said that the current U.S. position is “it’s ok” to torture. It’s quite clear that Obama a) wanted to release the memos so that the public understands what the PRIOR administration was culpable in; and b) having shown what the administration PRIOR had been doing, assert that the CURRENT administration will NOT be culpable in those actions.

    I think that’s awfully clear language. To people who don’t believe a word Obama says, of course (i.e., No Quarter), it doesn’t matter what Obama says, or even does: somehow, somewhere, he’s screwing you over. But to the rest of the world who doesn’t share that sentiment, it is clear to them that Obama has ended our nation’s torture policy.

    • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

      i see i made a type – i meant actions speak louder than words.

      he says torture is not ok, but he released memos whosing that the US did allow torture, and he is NOT prosecuting the torturers.

      So, he can talk all he wants about the US not allowing torture, but he is showing the world that we did, and he is NOT prosecuting them. So, in my opinion, that shows the world that it is OK – because he is not punishing anyone.

      Either don’t release them, or release them and prosecute.

      • Gerald Webb

        So, he can talk all he wants about the US not allowing torture, but he is showing the world that we did, and he is NOT prosecuting them. So, in my opinion, that shows the world that it is OK – because he is not punishing anyone.

        Then what will the world make of Obama’s public ending of our torture policy, and open condemnation of it? That’s a glaring policy change designed to make clear our torture regime is over. Obviously, when a policy ends, it is because an administration believes it was not a good one.

        • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

          Bush publically condemned torture, too.

          it doesn’t mean diddly if you don’t have consequences to the actions.

          which is why i said actions speak louder than words.

          • Gerald Webb

            Bush publically condemned torture, too.

            it doesn’t mean diddly if you don’t have consequences to the actions.

            which is why i said actions speak louder than words.

            Actions do speak louder than words, which is Obama’s ending of Bush’s torture policy speaks louder than anything. That is the consequence I believe you are looking for.

            • Donna Brazile

              Ger-old:

              But there’s good torture and bad torture according to That One.

              Which type of you for?

              Stop the lovefest!

              • Gerald Webb

                But there’s good torture and bad torture according to That One.

                You say there is form of torture that Obama supports? Could you provide a quote? Link? Something to support that allegation? I haven’t seen that anywhere, but I’m hardly omniscient, so maybe you’ve come across something I’ve missed.

              • trixta

                … good Al Qaeda and bad Al Qaeda … good Dems and bad Dems …

                Obama’s nuanced qualifications are insidious and divisive.

                • Gerald Webb

                  … good Al Qaeda and bad Al Qaeda … good Dems and bad Dems …

                  Obama’s nuanced qualifications are insidious and divisive.

                  I don’t see the word torture anywhere.

                  • trixta

                    Gerald — until Obama gets rid of GWB’s torture and rendition policies without qualification then he is continuing those policies.

                    Also, Obama tortures me everytime I hear his air-sucking, lying voice on the airwaves.

                    • Gerald Webb

                      Gerald — until Obama gets rid of GWB’s torture and rendition policies without qualification then he is continuing those policies.

                      Well now you’re throwing in rendition, a separate issue from torture. Obama has unequivocably ended the Bush torture policy. Rendition, he has amended, but probably not completely ended. But that’s a separate issue entirely from these torture memos.

                      Also, Obama tortures me everytime I hear his air-sucking, lying voice on the airwaves.

                      Beats having your head thrown against a wall, or trapped in a coffin with stinging insects. Right?

                    • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

                      and what exactly do you think happens when someone is renditioned? they go to Disney Land?

                    • cynic

                      There’s generally a difference between being taken into custody by American operatives and having been picked up by the Gestapo or the Schutzstaffel.

                      At least there is now. That’s more than we could have believed during the past few years.

            • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

              oh yea, that was a real consequence. i bet Bush won’t be able to sit for a week after that smack down.

              • Gerald Webb

                oh yea, that was a real consequence. i bet Bush won’t be able to sit for a week after that smack down.

                If you don’t find the end of torture consequential, then I’m not quite sure why you’ve even shown interest in this issue.

            • steel magnolia

              Yes, and the CONSEQUENCE of releasing these memos is that now our enemies (the terrorists) know exactly how and what means we used, how far we were allowed to go, and where we drew the line. Now when our military men and women happen to be captured by them, torture is inevitible.

              I think he should be IMPEACHED for releasing these documents!

              • Gerald Webb

                Now when our military men and women happen to be captured by them, torture is inevitible.

                I think you’re missing the point of the Geneva Conventions, why we initally banned torture in the first place, and why it was so critical to end the torture policy with an open airing of transgression. We banned torture along with 193 other countries so that, in a time of war, BOTH SIDES KNOW THAT THEIR SOLDIERS, IF CAPTURED, WILL NOT BE TORTURED.

                Therefore, it is actually a measure of PROTECTION for our soldiers that we end our torture policy with the utmost transparency in doing so. We have drawn the line back to the civilized position that 194 countries agreed upon originally.

              • http://noquarter foxyladi14

                that’s a great idea,,lets impeach him…

      • Nellie

        Sara,

        I agree with your reasoning.

        There are two other possibilities that come to mind for him releasing these memos when he did.

        1. He has been warned that the Republicans have found something he has so desperately tried to keep hidden and 0Zero is warning them that if they make it public – see what will happen; OR

        2. The success of the “tea Parties” have really spooked him, and he is warning the Republicans to call them off.

        Yes, actions do speak louder than words. There are many of us who have being doing in-depth research on him for over a year. We all KNOW without doubt 0Zero is just another Chicago Thug, and he is most likely playing hardball “The Chicago Way”!

        • Katmoon

          I think also to be considered is he is garnering more power by side stepping the legislation,(with the aiding and abetting of the Congress) and appointing more Czar’s than any other President; far and beyond what we would call a normal cabinet, that way if there comes to fruition an impeachable issue, none of the Czar’s nor their staff can claim presidential privilege, although that isn’t suppose to have legal standing, I believe there will be for this one.

          From Senator Robert Byrd

          Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in history, criticized President Obama’s appointment of numerous White House advisors, also called “czars,” saying the presence of the czars gives the president too much power.

          These czars report directly to Mr. Obama and have the power to shape national policy on their subject area. So far, Mr. Obama has recruited czars on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Unlike Cabinet secretaries, they do not have to be approved by Congress.

          In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.

          “As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”

          Byrd has been a longtime critic of policies that concentrate power in the executive branch. He often fought with the Bush Administration and Wednesday’s letter shows that he doesn’t mind going after a president from his own party.

          These days, however, Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

          Source:http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/02/25/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4828759.shtml

          • Katmoon

            Meant to say “all” not “none”. Sorry

            • Katmoon

              More on the same story from

              http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

              It was from 2-25-09: Not much in the media about,that I can recall.

              The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the president will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”

              Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

              Scary enough?

    • pm317

      There is enough in what he says for his supporters to rationalize. In a nation of laws, if you commit a crime, there are consequences and punishments based on being proven guilty. The consequences and punishments are what are missing here. It is a wimpy unprincipled politically expedient position. It lacks political and moral courage but we never expected 0bama to exhibit any of that.

      • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

        exactly! you said it better than i did!

      • Gerald Webb

        It is a wimpy unprincipled politically expedient position

        There is nothing wimpy about releasing such explosive information to the world, guaranteeing politically dangerous attacks from the right about “the betrayal” Obama has enacted on our CIA officials. From Greenwald:

        “In the United States, what Obama did yesterday is simply not done. American Presidents do not disseminate to the world documents which narrate in vivid, elaborate detail the dirty, illegal deeds done by the CIA, especially not when the actions are very recent, were approved and ordered by the President of the United States, and the CIA is aggressively demanding that the documents remain concealed and claiming that their release will harm national security. When is the last time a President did that?”

        • trixta

          But it’s wimpy if you don’t do anything about it — and you’re the POTUS!

          Obama is a passive aggressive personality, so his ambiguous stance on the matter of these memos and the law are not surprising.

        • pm317

          If you’re a nation of laws, you’re announcing to the world that crimes have been committed, you had better prosecute them. What don’t you understand in that simple logical construct? In his misplaced arrogance and stupidity, he has jeopardized national security as well as the reputation of this country as a nation of laws.

          It is surreal that you are lauding him as not being wimpy because he dared to put this country and its reputation at risk further? You fool!

          Sometimes it is better to say let sleeping dogs lie if you don’t have to courage to do the right thing.

          • Gerald Webb

            If you’re a nation of laws, you’re announcing to the world that crimes have been committed, you had better prosecute them. What don’t you understand in that simple logical construct? In his misplaced arrogance and stupidity, he has jeopardized national security as well as the reputation of this country as a nation of laws.

            If you really were so worried that Obama has threatened our national security by revealing the memos, why would you want him to go even further and prosecute? If you think sensitive information has been revealed now, just wait until you hear testimony under oath in open court.

            • candymarl

              They have courts that specifically deal with classified matters. The transcript of these proceedings are properly classified and not released to the public.

              Airing dirty laundry is fine. But what good does it do if you have no intention of washing said laundry?

              The Yoo memos had been released earlier. When the Dems took power people waited for Congress to go after folks like this. Yoo and company are still free as a bird.

              Obama has no intention of prosecuting these people. There’s too much dirt on him.

            • pm317

              That is why you don’t start something you can’t do right (right by your own definition which is based on a simple fact that this is a nation of laws). It is foolhardy to have released the memos and not take action on them. It is neither here nor there and compromises your reputation as a nation of laws and is a security risk. What did he gain by it? Next time we want a tyrant in a two-bit country tried for war crimes and torture, what do you have in your corner that works for you? You have given them evidence through those memos that you have different standards for you and them. “You and them” which is what all those terrorists use to recruit people. This guy is a disaster.

            • Senneth

              There are certainly alot of bots about here today. Is That One losing his popularity? What a shame.

    • Wisewoman

      Heh Webb. Get your facts straight. Through their legal work the ACLU got these memoes released via the Freedom of Information Act. Obama wanted to conceal them but had to release them or be in contempt. As was said during the campaign everything Obama utters are “JUST WORDS”. He is supposed to uphold and execute the duties of the constitution. The bottom line is that he is not carrying out his duty, period, end of conversation.

  • L

    I am truly not understanding the “bloodthirsty” need
    that everyone seems to have to see George Bush and
    those who worked for him punished or prosecuted. I
    think that would be horrible for our country. i can’t
    imagine what it must have been like after 9-11 to be
    in their shoes and desperate to keep our country safe.
    i was not a bush fan and did not vote for him either
    time but I will cut him some slack in this situation.
    I think outrage would be more useful directed at the
    Islamic extremists who behead their captives as well
    as treating women like chattel or worse. Where is the
    outrage over this!! A little waterboarding used on
    someone who wants to kill us is nothing compared to
    what they did to Daniel Perle. I am sure no one here
    will agree with me but I do think it is wrong to judge someone until you have walked in their shoes.

    • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

      i am not saying that bush should be prosecuted, or shouldn’t be. my point is that if you release these memos, but don’t punish anyone, it was perhaps better to not release them at all.

      • Gerald Webb

        my point is that if you release these memos, but don’t punish anyone, it was perhaps better to not release them at all.

        Democracies rise and fall on the information the government is willing to make available to its ppeople. An informed voter is a powerful voter. I don’t understand the desire to want less of that.

        • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

          I am not an uinformed voter, and had no doubt that some sort of torture was being used – I did see the images from Abu Ghraib, and know that Gitmo is there for a reason. I am not naive, and with someone like Cheney around, didn’t doubt the tactics being used. And I didn’t believe that those soldiers came up with the ideas all on their own.

          I am not concerned with the american voters so much as the message this sends around the world. It doesn’t matter if it was Bush or Obama, it was the USA that was torturing, according to these memos. And it is now the USA that is releasing these memos for the world to see and no one is being punished. This will stir up new rounds of hate, and the USA will be proven to, in fact, torture. WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

          Obama is appeasing the left by releasing the memos, but not prosecuting anyone…

          I agree that by releasing them he is harming national security – by not prosecuting anyone after releasing them.

          You can defend obama and *not understand* till the cows come home, but that is my opinion. He proved the USA tortured. Doesn’t matter if he now says he won’t torture. Bush said it, too.

          • Gerald Webb

            This will stir up new rounds of hate, and the USA will be proven to, in fact, torture. WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.

            I believe you are simply confusing the past with the present.

            • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

              OK, one last time, then I am done. All you are is an Obama apologist, but I will give it one more go, and then move on to more important things, like filing my nails.

              It’s kind of like when Obama was asked about his aunt living here illegaly, and he said that he believed in the law and that the laws should be followed.

              BUT, yet, his aunt is still living here illegally, they knew she had been living here illegally, and had put her up in government funded housing, and she is still living in govt. housing.

              So, Obama can talk all he wants about the law – but unless their are consequences for breaking those laws IT IS ALL TALK.

              It doesn’t mean shit.

              SO, ALL HE DID WAS PROVE TO THE WORLD THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AUTHORIZED THE USE OF TORTURE. And he is not doing anything about it. He can say he won’t torture, but he is doing NOTHING about what was done, and he is following exactly what Bush did, and telling the world that the USofA does not torture.

              BUT HE PROVED WE DID. He proved the word of the USA means jack shit. It’s one thing to suspect it, it’s another to have the POTUS prove it, and then do nothing about it.

              But again, this is just my opinion.

              • Gerald Webb

                All you are is an Obama apologist, but I will give it one more go, and then move on to more important things, like filing my nails.

                Yes, I do believe you take the issue of the Bush torture regime less seriously than the filing of your nails.

                • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

                  ooooh you are so witty, what a burn, wow, you got me. /snark

                  no dear, i consider filing my nails more important than going back and forth with someone who’s only purpose is to deny the truth, and defend obama.

                  if obama wants to reveal the memos, then friggin prosecute. if he doesn’t want to prosecute, then in my opinion, he shouldn’t have released them.

                  • Docelder

                    if he doesn’t want to prosecute, then in my opinion, he shouldn’t have released them.

                    Yes, but by releasing them, he perpetuates the effigy of the “evil Bush”. That effigy is as responsible as anything for him being POTUS today. Obama campaigned against Bush instead of McCain. Biden couldn’t construct a coherent sentence that did not have the words Bush or past eight years in it. The loony left needs to keep the strong distaste of Bush in our mouths… besides being good for the loony business… it’s about all they have got in common with each other.

                    • Gerald Webb

                      The loony left needs to keep the strong distaste of Bush in our mouths… besides being good for the loony business… it’s about all they have got in common with each other.

                      You seem to be a big fan of the former president. What a shock to find someone like you at No Quarter.

                      (cricket sounds)

                    • Docelder

                      I see. So stating that Bush isn’t the President anymore makes me a “big fan”. That is the kind of logic that elected Obama as our President to begin with. Hope you like your change… as well as the rice and beans that comes along with it.

                    • Ferd Berfle

                      You seem to be a big fan of the former president. What a shock to find someone like you at No Quarter.

                      Very few of the regulars liked him, jerry. I never voted for the texas tinhorn. That being said, I didn’t vote for That One, either. He is Dubya redux. You’ll find out soon enough and regret your ill-advised support of a man with no past. The only thing I’ll add is that Bush would have ended up being the worst president in history until your unqualified boob got the job. I’ve got to hand it to you extremists–you duds can sure pick a loser. Hell, we got two of them in a row now.

              • arran

                AGII–Doc99 and I encourage you to read, (or google articles about), Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals.” I agree with Doc99′s claim, in the comments, that 0′s game-plan is right there.

          • Peggy Sue

            Despite some of the comments here by Obama supporters, I’ve been reading the Left blogs today. The vast majority are “extremely” upset with Obama’s unwillingness to take this a step further. Many refer to it as a “kick in the gut.”

            Surprise! You got what you voted for.

            From where I sit this was a political decision made by the Politician-in-Chief. Can you hear the veneer cracking???

      • trixta

        L — if GWB gets away with breaking the laws, then so does Obama. We either have laws and a Constitution or we don’t. It’s high time Presidents were held accountable when they break their oath to uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution.

      • L

        I beleve that they shouldn’t have been released at all. I believe that Obama has an underlying reason
        for everything he does and you are probably right
        that he wants to use this to justify actions he
        may take in the future. However, unless he has a
        9-11 I don’t see that he can justify doing so.
        Thanks for allowing me to have a difference of
        opinion.

    • arran

      L–These methods of torture used by my country make me wince and angry:

      keeping detainees naked for long periods,

      keeping them in a painful standing position for long periods,

      depriving them of solid food,

      using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls,

      keeping their cells cold for long periods of time,

      beating and kicking the detainee,

      sleep deprivation,

      prolonged shackling,

      threats to a detainee’s family, and

      combining multiple methods.

      I can make judgments about not supporting these methods of torture without walking in anyone’s shoes. The US shouldn’t use torture, ever.

      • arran

        Re: guests on Jim Lehrer tonight

        These methods of torture were approved by Congress over 30 times after 2002, especially by Pelosi and Rockefeller. Some asked if these methods were tough enough.

    • http://noquarter foxyladi14

      believe it or not but i agree with you..

      • arran

        Hi, foxyladi14. I wasn’t aware that you and I had opposing views. I’m glad we agree on torture.

    • Peggy Sue

      L, I agree that there is little comparison between what we’ve done through “enhanced” interrogation methods and what was done to Danny Perle, which was absolutely hideous. But we diminish ourselves by trying to pretend that a “little” waterboarding is acceptable when clearly it falls outside a number of treaties that we have willingly signed onto in terms of what constitutes inhumane treatment.

      We are either live by the law. Or we don’t.

      John McCain has thoroughly and without hesitation rejected any and all treatment that smacks of inhumane treatment of prisoners. Since he survived wretched treatment at the hands of his own captors, I respect his take on the matter.

      No torture. No excuses. It’s not [or least it should not] be who we are. Otherwise, the enemy wins by our willingness to abandon our own principles.

  • Pingback: Real Estate Austin » Abby L. Ferber: Getting to the Roots of Hate Crime Criminal News Stories

  • I’m a Linda too

    And Obama is far worse on this because he claims to know better, releases torture memos for poltical reasons, to offer red meat, but still not do what he campaigned on or the right thing, just to try to cloud the issues he under heat on. PIG.

    • James Guglielmino

      On what basis do you make that rather dogmatic statement?
      My gosh, the guy has done everthing except publicly stand on his head to NOT get into the issue of torture. I am quite confident that the issue of torture would be one that Obama would love to just disappear. It is an issue that is going to result in a tearing apart of people, no matter what he does and the gain that we might hope for, the return of respect, for what we stood for BEFORE we orchestrated torture, is not an easily measured gain. I don’t think Obama released this information at all for political gain. I don’t see that he has gained politically, by doing it.

  • brio

    Remember, no matter Obama’s decisions, Turley said, “I really do have a lot of respect for President Obama” (4.07.09, Countdown).

    • arran

      And your point being what, brio?

    • Mercedes

      And Seymour Hersh really does seem to respect Dick Cheney, too. I believe in a recent interview he said something to the effect that he is “the real thing” and knows more about US bureaucracy and politics than anyone around. That is probably an accurate statement. But it didn’t stop Hersh from identifying Cheney as the head of his own assassination squad.

      It takes a lot of ego and arrogance to get up every day and do and say some of the things Obama does. Obama is like a slippery, camouflaged viper who could spring out of nowhere and sink his deadly fangs into your flesh in a flash. I respect that too.

  • cynic

    OK, fine. Let’s go ahead with the damn war-crimes trials. Let’s go after the people who were at the very top. Let all be revealed in the world’s brightest spotlight. Let those responsible be held fully accountable and let punishment be meted out to the fullest extent the law allows. Let those on the sidelines who who were complicit by supporting the perpetrators be publicly shamed. Hell, I suspected evil was there all along, and I’m only a passingly-well-informed private citizen. If I knew, everyone involved should have known. I concur that trials are what full adherence to our highest American ideals and moral standards requires.

    Be aware, however, that there will be a price, and that the price will be bourn by us all:

    We will immediately see the deep and dangerous political divisions in our nation widen and deepen even further. Far-right conservatives will immediately begin screaming at the top of their lungs that prosecution is partisan persecution. They will use this as a wedge, and drive it in with a hammer. Broadening radicalization will follow.

    All media attention will focus and fixate on the trials. All else of national importance in this most critical of times will get lost. We’ll suffer from the same dangerous degree of distraction that the republicans gave us with the absurdity of the Clinton impeachment efforts–except it will be happening while the nation is in grave danger. Something of vital importance will be missed. I guarantee it.

    Our national intelligence agencies and military could be seriously damaged. Unless, of course, we want to believe that “I was only following orders” has become an acceptable excuse. I personally don’t believe that it is. If we beginning pulling on this thread and commit ourselves to making a complete job of it, a lot more may unravel than we’re counting on.

    Do we want go there? If so, we’d better fasten our seat belts very tightly. Because the probability is high that there’s going to be a serious crash.

    • Gerald Webb

      I appreciate that you’re taking this issue as seriously as it deserves to be. Unfortunately, that can’t be said for so many of the other commenters at NQ.

      Their worldview is consistent, at least: if Obama did it, it must be bad.

    • James Guglielmino

      The problem with your post is that the dynamics of what occurred are classical of dysfunction. We would LOVE to sweep this all under a rug and make it go away. In a house where the husband beats his wife or sexually abuses his daughter, there is an immense desire to NOT TALK about it, to sweep it under a rug. “It didn’t happen.” The problem is that it did happen. It cannot and the dysfunction of Americans perpetrating torture, cannot be healed without open discussion, investigations and a totally non partisan decision on whether or not there is sufficient evidence to move foreward. In addition, it seems clear from the documents released that laws were broken. America is changed and can not be changed back to what it was, without investigation. I note that the Spanish judge has not been stopped by the prosecutor recommending against proceeding. Also a NY State congressman has called for a special prosecutor. There really ARE a myriad of problems with proceeding forward but we cannot return to what we were without proceeding.

  • James Guglielmino

    Among other problems with no good solutions, Obama inherited the issue of American perpetrated torture from the Bush administration. Not JUST “American perpetrated,” but perpetrated by the highest in the Bush administration, including Bush and Cheney themselves. But, that isn’t all. It is probable that there are Congress people, both Republican and Democratic who are culpable in that they were briefed on what was being done and did nothing to stop it. So, what to do? I do not even really know what Obama actually thinks about torturing to get information. I *think* that he probably believes that it is ineffective, that it causes our own troops to be more endangered, and that it is illegal. I don’t know if he would bite on the odious and ridiculous “bomb hidden in the city, terrorist in custody, what would you do to get the information that would save a million lives?”
    In any case, the problems associated with dealing effectively with the issue are myriad and without any kind of straight forward solution. For example, who gets prosecuted? Do we let the lower echelons alone because they were acting on orders from above? Uh-oh, we *didn’t* necessarily do that after after WW II and that is not consistent with international law OR our own laws. Still, in some ways they were victims, too. What about the former President and Vice President? Do we prosecute them? We are talking about crimes that call for imprisonment for life. The attorneys who wrote the odious “opinions” that “made the torture legal?” What about the Congress people who allowed it to happen? While many of us have a visceral reaction to the idea that we tortured people and believe that our nation can never be what it was before the torture, any thinking person has to confront the complexity of the problem. Better for now, I suspect, to do nothing and allow evidence to continue to come out, perhaps find that the Spanish judge will decide to move forward in spite of the prosecutor’s recommending that the case be dropped(Update: He has), and so forth, than to act in a hasty manner and get it very, very wrong.

    • Nellie

      James,

      I do agree that a method for prosecution must be carefully thought out. One of the main reasons the US was held in such high esteem was the manner in which war crimes were handled at Nuremberg. At that time the Lawyers who wrote the contorted reasoning trying to justify torture would have been tried as “collaborators”.

      Where your logic goes widely askew is in these statements:

      Obama inherited the issue of American perpetrated torture from the Bush administration. and

      What about the Congress people who allowed it to happen?

      Obama neither descended from the Heavens nor landed from another planet. Obama was IN THE SENATE VOTING ON THE WAR BILLS as of January 2005 - so he DID NOT inherit the problems, he was actively involved in perpetuating them with his votes!

      • Senneth

        The bots are out in full force today. Good grief, can’t they stomach the fall of their precious?

  • Gerald Webb

    While many of us have a visceral reaction to the idea that we tortured people and believe that our nation can never be what it was before the torture, any thinking person has to confront the complexity of the problem.

    Absolutely correct. And one of the biggest dilemmas for Obama is the possibility of prosecuting not just your predecessor in office, but a predecessor from the opposition party. Does Obama really want to enter a new weapon into our political warfare where–no matter how justified–the first response of a new administration is to find a way to throw the previous one in jail? I suspect that question weighs quite heavily on his current decision-making.

    • miriam

      GW: So what you are saying is this decision is a political one, and ONLY a political one. American law, however, does not say it is permissible to break the law if the reason for breaking it is political. J. Turley is highly regarded and had commented favorably on Obama in the past, so if he uses the term “obstructing justice” in regard to Obama, I tend to listen.

      • Gerald Webb

        GW: So what you are saying is this decision is a political one, and ONLY a political one.

        No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. The implications of a precedent being established whereby political parties obtaining power immediately prosecute their predecessors has implications for our country’s democratic well-being far beyond mere political gamesmanship.

        American law, however, does not say it is permissible to break the law if the reason for breaking it is political.

        And nowhere did I say that was the case either.

        J. Turley is highly regarded and had commented favorably on Obama in the past, so if he uses the term “obstructing justice” in regard to Obama, I tend to listen.

        I do, too. But just because J. Turley is on your side in this instance doesn’t make him right. A decision not to prosecute does not automatically become obstruction of justice. Prosecutors decline to prosecute all the time, even when they have evidence of guilt. That doesn’t mean they’re automatically “obstructing justice”. It means other information has come to light that mitigates the need for prosecution.

  • candymarl

    What is the point of releasing evidence of crime if you have no intention of prosecuting anyone?

    This means that the US cannot send real criminals to the Hague for prosecution. They’ll have a valid defense – that the US had evidence of war crimes and did nothing.

    Of course there is that pesky matter with cousin Odinga. The man who incited his followers in Kenya to murder men, women, and children. Obama fund raised and campaigned for him. He has not uttered one word of condemnation about what happened to those people.

    So I guess those who say nothing should be done are right. After all, what’s a little rape, murder, or torture among friends?

    • cynic

      The issue is the evil that an American president actually did in the name of the American people. What someone who doesn’t represent me in any way might have done in Africa has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

  • jeremy

    can someone please define torture for me please?

    • cynic

      If a government feels compelled to destroy all of the video tapes of an interrogation procedure, and if at least 5 people have died while the interrogation procedure was being applied, we might begin to suspect that the definion has been met.

      • cynic

        Perhaps death does not meet the “prolonged mental harm” part of the definition…

  • http://noquarter foxyladi14

    torture for me is when my kids turn their music up so loud,the neighbors call to complain..lol.
    oh.my poor ears!!!

  • pm317

    Now there are two idiots on this thread arguing for 0bama. I guess they needed the moral(?) support of the other.

  • http://deleted Buzz Latte

    Bots prefer a nation of flaws to a nation of laws. Otherwise, they would not condone Obama’s actions. Or Obama, for that matter.

    And since when has there been any mention that Al-Queda has agreed to follow the Geneva Conventions?

    Beheadings, anyone? How about that non-enemy communications worker that was kidnapped in Iraq and beheaded at the start of Bush’s War? Was he treated fairly under the Geneva Convention?

    Does anyone remember Daniel Pearl?

    It’s not all that crystal clear as to who is right or wrong on this issue. But please do not pretend that Obama has done any good by his actions. I’d believe Turley.

    • cynic

      If anything, what happened to Daniel Pearl stands as a stark example of what we don’t want to become ourselves. I doubt if Daniel Pearl would have wanted to be used to make case for a national policy condoning the torture of captives.

      • Peggy Sue

        You’re exactly right, cynic. From what I’ve read of Danny Pearl and his wife, this is the last thing they’d want.

  • http://deleted Buzz Latte

    Nick Berg. May you obots have nightmares with that name being played over and over.

    • Donna Brazile

      Sic nic and ger-old:

      Let’s send them for some rendition since they seem to think that’s okay!

      Typically hypocrits! As long as my side does it— it must have a moral high ground. Damn grow a backbone.

      Stop the lovefest!

  • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

    Former Reagan Justice Department official Bruce Fein writes that Obama’s decision to release CIA memos without prosecuting Bush administration officials flouts his constitutional duty.

    Obama has set a precedent whitewashing White House lawlessness in the name of national security that will lie around like a loaded weapon ready for resurrection by any Commander-in-Chief eager to appear “tough on terrorism” and to exploit popular fear.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-17/how-obama-excused-torture/

    • arran

      (AGII, thanks for this post of Fein’s reaction. I’ve bookmarked it.)

      Fein agrees with Turley about 0′s decision not to prosecute. He says, “Obama has proven a political coward dangerous to the Republic.”

      fyi–0 did not volunteer these OLC memoranda, but was required to give them up in response to a Freedom of Information Act suit.

      Great article by Fein whom I’ve admired since he was a guest on Bill Moyers Journal.

  • UrbanLad

    Sadly, I’m brain dead after a day of teaching. Just wanted to let you know that this is an awesome blog. Found while Googling Turley+torture. Will be back and will contribute.

    • http://sarainitalyblog.blogspot.com/ American Girl in Italy

      welcome! :O)

  • mary

    SUSAN

    I agree with everything you’ve written and at risk of being redundant the “Left” and “Progressives” and “Liberals” should be turning red with SHAME!

    Obummer has reduced politics to a mere vaudvellie act of Personality. Guess he’s a loyal disciple of Reagan his favorite Prez whom he praised to high heaven during the corrupt Primary! Nice trajectory there Obohobo!

    No moral compass. No ideology. No conviction…

    Was it Keats who wrote

    The worst are full of passionate intensity while the best lack all conviction? Well, the worst seem to have neither passionate intensity nor conviction–just an urge to get into the White House at all costs. With an anorexic resume and ambition unlimited! What a farce that this moron is Prez!

  • TerryG

    What member(s)  of the House will present articles of impeachment against Obama?  So, who are we to vote for in a year?  A republican who wants to screw the American people by taking healthcare away and social security and give tax benefits to wealthy people?  Obama has become a war criminal by obstructing justice and shielding the Bush criminals from prosecution.  Can we make a citizens arrest without having the Secret Service shoot us down in the streets?  What a great country we live in……..