Cenk interviews John berry (wrote article for newsweek about how obama shouldn't prosecute)

[democrat0986]

Run time: 16:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aJ5Zy4nGP4   Posted on YouTube: January 27, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 27, 2009 By DU Member: democrat0986 Views on DU: 2041

 

[lapfog_1]

1. John Barry...

born in England, resides in Chevy Chase MD and writes for Newsweek.

But his biography doesn't indicate his citizenship. If he is here as a green card holder, I really don't think he should have an opinion about how we prosecute our criminals. He claims that "everyone thought it was legal"... but that is patently false, given the great length they went to AT THE TIME to coverup their crimes. And, that's not even important in our legal system. It doesn't matter if I think what I'm doing isn't breaking the law, it doesn't even matter if I get 100 lawyers to TELL me what I'm doing isn't breaking the law... what matters is whether a court and a jury believe that I BROKE the law, not whether or not I believe I was breaking the law. And the standard test (as I recall from my law classes) is "what would a reasonable person believe" was legal or not, not Bush, not Cheney, and not his whole corrupt Justice Department, but a "reasonable person".

So this budding British neocon asshole should just STFU.

[DUlover2909]

2. There are whistle blowers that won't plead the 5th.

Scott McClellan could testify for example. If they could only get people under oath and question them, then at least the appearance of a persuit of justice would be better than no attempt at all.

[ihavenobias]

3. Here is Cenk's article criticizing Barry's position (and Barry's original article)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x419971

[Seldona]

4. This guy doesn't have a leg to stand on.

His only argument is that it will be worse to do something than to do nothing. Nothing to back it up. It is COUNTER to existing law, and was then.

Oh wait, he says everyone will plead the fifth. Ever heard if immunity? The 'underlings' not only can't claim the fifth then, they will sit in jail until they talk!

I stated in an earlier thread that this guy is a hack. I stand by that assertion after this pathetic attempt at defending himself and his ridiculous ideas.

[Piewhacket]

5. Good piece. Cenk has it. Barry has nothing but bombast.. Prosecute!

[shintao]

7. I am still not hearing the word "Murder" mentioned

What is the problem with the media? 26 defenseless POWs were murdered on Bush's watch! Waterboarding is a minor annoyance to the crimes that need to be prosecuted with Bush Inc.

Another reason we have to lock these people away, is because if we don't the World will, and that will cause an International incident of gigantic porportions. There were moves made to arrest Rumsfeld while he was in France. The UN expert on torture has asked why Bush is not being prosecuted. The world expects justice from America, and they have no love affair with the butcher from Texas. If there is vengence, it is with the World.

[Window]

6. K/R.

:kick:

[Wetzelbill]

8. That guy just looks like a smarmy fat cat tool, lol

Youtube has the funniest still frames.

[mt13]

9. SMARMY!

perfect description of this pompous ass. it is very difficult for me to listen to anyone that sounds like Thurston Howell with any credibility, I just want to laugh!

[pokercat999]

10. Newsweek actually employs this moron? WTF? nt

[florida08]

11. sounds like a straw man

but we'll see. Since President Obama has opened up FOIA maybe the press will probe deep enough to bring about a reliable trial.
Guess it depends what the polls show if the public wants to pursue it or not. Personally I would like to see some accountability towards the last administration. The NSA spied on jounalists according to a former NSA agent. Jonathen Turley believes they should be prosecuted if they're found to have committed war crimes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/28864697#28864697

[GinaMaria]

19. if journalists make the case to the public

it will be a lot more difficult for the * peeps to claim politics. Not that they won't try. I hope the media start to look at things as they become available, investigate and report on their findings.

[florida08]

24. excellent point Gina

I agree..and the press usually have witness/informers to back it up. Let the digging begin ;-)

[florida08]

12. April 14 2008

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.


http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

[Gorobei]

13. This Barry guy clearly has no understanding of the structure of the American government

Every claim he has made essentially ignores the founding idea of separation of powers.

[CitizenPatriot]

14. condescending attitude is hard to get past

All of that aside, the most basic argument for prosecuting is that it diminishes our constitution and our laws if we do not. It could be argued that the Nixon pardon paved the way for Bush.

I'm no lawyer, but I do remember what I learned in law class. The law is only as good as the enforcement of said law.

It's not about vengeance and all of the other Republican talking points for getting out of trouble. It's not "blame game." Are we in preschool? Good lord. I'm done listening to liars lying. The law is the law.

No, they were not persuaded that the law was NOT being broken. They aren't stupid. They knew that the DoJ rulings were partisan and written to please Bush and justify what he wanted to do. In fact, those very rulings are being investigated, if I'm not mistaken.

If someone were to come along and tell me in my business that black was white, I'd know the difference because it's what I do everyday. I'm pretty sure that the lawyers in the Ex Branch knew what the law was.

I do think he's correct about how we've been told to focus on Cheney as the dark force, which seems to absolve Bush.

One can't help but wonder what this guy has invested in maintaining the cover up.

"retroactivity"??? WTF??? Can't prosecute retroactively because he's a president but we can with ordinary citizens?

Why didn't congress impeach? Um, well....how about the illegal wiretapping? Maybe they were being blackmailed. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is a reasonable assumption. I'd like that investigated. How about how the DoJ wouldn't enforce the congressional subpoena? This sounds like a lot of hooey. "reasonably clear" that we can't prosecute Bush?

Hmmm. I believe there is a lot of merit in the effort, as it speaks to upholding the constitution and the power in the ex branch re war. Sometimes it's worth doing something even if you're pretty sure it's going to fail. I'd like to be a citizen of a country which tried to uphold the law rather than one which gave up before trying. It simply doesn't bode well for the legal system at all if we don't prosecute people in power.

[Kajsa]

15. " video is no longer available"

Darn!

:(

[ihavenobias]

16. Video works fine! n/t

[Pamela Troy]

22. No it doesn't.

[Karenina]

23. Indeed not! 00:00 A sure sign!

[OhioChick]

17. K&R

:kick:

[matthewf]

18. k & rrrrr

[Turborama]

20. "Free John Barry's Brain!"

Via Glenn Greenwald, here's Newsweek's John Barry, explaining why any attempt to hold the Bush administration accountable for its numerous crimes would constitute "vengeance, pure and simple":

Turn to Congress—and the core charge that the administration "misled" the legislature and the American public by faking evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Really? There is ample evidence that Saddam was genuinely believed to have an arsenal by those with access to the intelligence. Why? Because Saddam's closest associates and his army commanders believed it; and told the CIA and its British counterpart, MI6, when, by ingenious and genuinely heroic efforts, those intelligence agencies made contact with them. All this is a matter of public record.

It would be incredible for any reporter to write this. The US was told by the head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service Tahir Jalil Habbush, Iraq's Foreign Minister Naji Sabri, and dozens of relatives of Iraqi WMD scientists that the administration's claims were completely wrong.

But it's truly mind-boggling to hear it from John Barry. It's not just that Barry is one of the better corporate reporters on foreign policy. No, it's much worse: Barry personally broke a giant story immediately before the invasion of Iraq about the U.S. government faking WMD evidence.

In the March 3, 2003 issue of Newsweek, Barry revealed that Saddam's son-in-law Hussein Kamel, after defecting to Jordan in 1995, told the US and UN that Iraq had no remaining WMD. This was the opposite of what Bush, Cheney, Blair and Powell were claiming Kamel had said. According to Barry, Kamel's statements had been "hushed up." (Barry says this was done by the UN, but it clearly happened with the connivance of the US.)

But there's more. After Barry's story came out, Reuters asked Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesman and one of George Tenet's closest aides, to comment. Harlow vociferously attacked Barry, calling his article "incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue."

Of course, Barry's story was completely accurate. And it was about something the CIA in 2003 knew with 100% certainty—ie, what Hussein Kamel had said in 1995. (This is opposed to, say, whether what Kamel had said was true. It was later learned he'd been completely honest.)

So to sum up: even after having the CIA blatantly lie about his own work, John Barry will angrily defend the government's veracity.

It's genuinely frightening to see what people have to do to keep their jobs at places like Newsweek. Hopefully Barack Obama is about to create some glasnost within the US government, but even if he does, America's news outlets will retain an alarmingly Soviet tinge.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Embedded links within:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/002811.html

:kick:

&

[navarth]

21. I'm sure Barry wasn't in favor of impeaching Clinton then?

I'd like to hear him spout about that.

[whistle]

25. So it's gone

[autorank]

26. k*r!!! n/t

[democrat0986]

27. "this video has been removed due to terms of use violation"

that's what it says on youtube when i click on the url.
OH NO!!!!!!!!!! THE YOUNG TURKS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN SUSPENDED!!!!!!! what will i do???????? oh no, this is terrible!!! what happened? does anyone know?

[Beacho]

28. Young Turks Have Been Suspended By You Tube

Contact them and let them know how you feel about it!