I'm not one of those millions of people who want instant gratification. I support Obama so far...the man has been president for 79 days...and I'm reserving judgement on these particular issues for awhile because of the incredible mess Obama inherited after eight years of Republican rule. I never expected to agree with every decision Obama would make as president when I voted for him, and I don't think that will change. At the same time, I am not so arrogant that I pretend to know what it is that has actually been revealed by the wiretaps....if anything. AND I also want the Bush criminals to be put in jail...but that also is going to take time and investigation.

It's up to us, THE PEOPLE, to let our reps know that we do not want illegal wiretapping...period.

What do you think a President McCain would have done differently?

An ancient, unwritten principle that the Constitution itself failed to waive, is the basis for a Justice Dept. petition to dismiss a FISA-related civil suit.

For the record, I voted for President Obama as well.

Mr. Obama need only direct AG Holder to appoint a special prosecutor. This special prosecutor would orchestrate the investigatory process, while Mr. Obama and Congress carried on with other important matters. According to a number of legal experts, some of the Bush crimes will soon become un-prosecutable due to statute of limitation expirations.

Moreover, it appears it's not merely that Mr. Obama hasn't yet gotten to these matters in the midst of the economic and war scenario turmoil. But rather, he's in fact upheld the current overbearing domestic wiretapping policies, encompassing the right to monitor, stockpile, and data mine all of our electronic communications. Eric Holder Justice Department attorneys have already asserted firm adherence to the Bush 'State Secrets' position in recent court cases, one challenging the government's right to wiretap American citizens, and the other challenging the government's involvement in instances of extraordinary rendition and torture. Representatives for the AG told the courts in both cases that such adherence to the same position had been fully vetted by the current administration.

If Mr. Obama refuses to give up the dangerous and unconstitutional powers that Bush and Cheney took for themselves, these tools will remain in place for use by the next corrupt, dictatorial ruler who manipulates a path to the White House. And sooner or later there will be such a person. Whoever this person may be, and no matter how far into the future he or she comes to power, the individual will have carte blanche to utilize these preserved excessive powers in any manner chosen. He or she will thus be capable of undoing many or all of the other corrective measures that Mr. Obama and Congress will have implemented, along with all of the good that may stem from such. In part, this potential will be attributable to Mr. Obama's decision to retain certain unconstitutional presidential powers. It's with these very tools that a US president could conceivably make the Bush/Cheney reign look like child's play.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, do you think it wise to risk leaving this looming threat alive and well for use by Executive Branch successors? I know I don't. Remember, the pendulum always swings back.

I am in complete agreement with you about the Justice Department's ways and means to do it. However, I am also concerned that Repubs will consider it a "witch hunt" and possibly find it to be a way to unite in order to win elections in 2010 and 2012. On the other hand, it seems right now that the possibility of anyone, Dem or at least moderate Repub disapproving of at least a special prosecutor to be appointed, as you said, is minimal, especially with the Repub party in such disarray. They lack focus and leadership...and they know their heroes are as guilty as sin...but they would really like to raise a hue and cry about anything in order to distract. Repubs are masters at spin...as we well know. So are their media servants.

Maybe, once the economy gets back on track, and other "clean up" work is accomplished, the Bush-Cheney question will be at the forefront of Obama's agenda. There must be an investigation at least on the same scale as the one launched by Repubs about Clinton's extra-marital affair. But I'm not expecting it to happen during Obama's first year....

Schumer: DOJ should investigate Red Cross reports of torture

I completely agree with Chuck Schumer.

If your "maybe" pans out, then someone had better appropriately extend the applicable statute of limitations for those alleged crimes that are near expiration. If someone doesn't do this, then I'll conclude that the Obama administration simply isn't interested in pursuing justice in this regard. And if that turns out to be the case, it will be inexcusable and extremely dangerous for the future of America.

Reasonably, that current-administration-vetted position asserted to bar the court systems from trying cases which challenge extraordinary rendition and domestic wiretapping tends to establish Mr. Obama's attitude toward such challenges. That's a bad sign, at best. And it brings to mind yet another point about Mr. Obama. He has seemingly contradicted himself to a great extent. He asserted that "no one is above the law." Immediately thereafter he then stated, "but we need to look forward, not backward." The contradictory element is the fact that by willfully doing nothing to pursue accountability for the Bush crimes, the Obama administration is effectively facilitating an above-the-law status for former administration officials who have committed egregious crimes and serious constitutional violations. So, in my judgment, Mr. Obama's "no one is above the law" statement can only be interpreted to mean that no one, except Executive Branch officials (former, or otherwise), is above the law. Again, I find this an inexcusable attitude. What do you think would happen to a regular citizen who thumbed his or her nose at a congressional subpoena multiple consecutive times? I assure you, it would be a far different response from that in the Karl Rove & Co. matter. There are some serious double standards in place and I've seen little effort to resolve them. But what makes it even worse is when the president tells us those double standards no longer exist and then turns around and facilitates them, himself.

Sadly, wishful thinking and holding a benefit-of-the-doubt perspective result in disappointment much of the time.

I agree with you. I've been somewhat following Mr. Bugliosi's book campaign and noble effort. It would be wonderful if a state prosecutor answered his call. However, that would in no way reduce Mr. Obama's responsibility to restore, protect, and defend the United States Constitution. Simply stated, if he doesn't allow his Justice Department to pursue investigations into the Bush crimes, Mr. Obama is neither facilitating justice nor defending our Constitution.

Torture Is a Crime That Must Be Punished

By Eugene Robinson

Eugene Robinson says it's time to stop mincing words and start holding the guilty accountable. The business of torture... is too unspeakable to be left unfinished. I agree!



ALSO READ THIS BLOG REPORT:

PROSECUTE OR PERISH: Why the survival of our Constitutional Democracy may hinge on factually justified criminal prosecutions of the Bush/Cheney cabal...

Indeed!

And for those who may have missed it, here's another revelation from earlier this year:



The above article was an item appearing at irregulartimes.com on February 22, 2009. It has, however, been corroborated by multiple sources.

For those who believe in God, pray for World Peace. When I feel helpless to do anything, that's all I CAN do.

On Meet the Press this morning, they ran that clip of President Obama emphatically stating "Words must mean something!" The thing that immediately flashed in my mind were his own words: "No one is above the law." Blatant hypocrisy, perhaps? What else are we to make of his concealment of that which he said he would change? Where's the "transparency" he promised us?

Words are empty, it is action which shows ones true colors.

War. Expanded.

War Criminals. Protected.

Economy. Decimated.

This man is talking out of both sides of his face and I find him to be more dangerous than Bush because Bush was blatantly obvious and clearly retarded. Obama is manipulative, cunning, and very intelligent. Much more dangerous.

The problems listed above started way before Obama, or even Bush for that matter. They actually really kicked into gear under Reagan, continued under Bush I, expanded under Clinton, and exploded under Bush II. Obama is just putting the finishing touches on the destruction of America and the rest of the world so that the New World Order can be implemented.

Of course, if one does not believe that the goal is a NWO then I guess that what was written above is nothing more than the rantings of a conspiracy nut....no matter how much they STATE THAT NOW IS A PERFECT TIME FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER.

Course, thats just me. I know that many here and abroad disagree with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLPG_HplrA


This was a fantastic 10 minute video on the New World Order. You Tube took it down within 12 hours after I became aware of it.

I find the tens of thousands of internet thought police who continually deny the growth of the surveillance society that has entered the domain of beginning/intermediate stages of a police state to be....interesting and self-fulfilling.

The muscle for the New World Order comes from the thought police under their employ. Some are educated, most are not. Many have a hard time putting together a logical sentence. Yet they are empowered with the jurisdiction to judge thoughts.

The Bush Six to Be Indicted...IN SPAIN

Spanish prosecutors will seek criminal charges against Alberto Gonzales and five high-ranking Bush administration officials for sanctioning torture at Guantánamo.

By Scott Horton.

Spanish prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo, several reliable sources close to the investigation have told The Daily Beast. Their decision is expected to be announced on Tuesday before the Spanish central criminal court, the Audencia Nacional, in Madrid. But the decision is likely to raise concerns with the human-rights community on other points: They will seek to have the case referred to a different judge.

The six defendants—in addition to Gonzales, Federal Appeals Court Judge and former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, University of California law professor and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, former Defense Department general counsel and current Chevron lawyer William J. Haynes II, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith—are accused of having given the green light to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners held in U.S. detention in “the war on terror.”

You know, I am finding myself withdrawing from world affairs and concerning myself only with what goes on around my little circle. Obviously, I know this is wrong, and I abhor this behavior in others, but I cannot help but do it. I am so frustrated and sickened by the outside world that I don't think I belong in it anymore.