So, when Holder answered Leahy's question about torture

[Duer 157099]

the one about whether the President can immunize anyone from prosecution for engaging in torture... did Holder's answer pretty much paint Obama into a corner so that he'll be FORCED to pursue criminal charges against Bush et al?

It was a tricky question from Leahy, because it could have been taken to mean "can Bush immunize" anyone from charges (and Holder's answer also would be the same: no) - but it applies equally well to Obama, doesn't it??

Holder's answer says that Obama CANNOT decide to not pursue charges against Bush et al, right??? Although, it's probably the AG's call, technically, so Holder, if he's confirmed and if he's a man of his word, WILL, ABSOLUTELY WILL HAVE TO prosecute the Bush regime for torture!!

Right???

[okiru109]

1. if the new justice is dedicated to up holding the law and there is no political interference

bush and cheney and the rest of their gang better be lawyering up :evilgrin:

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think Obama is all about looking forward and not dirtying

his hands with prosecutions. That's below his pay grade. Holder, on the other hand, is a different story. It's his job to clean up those messes with prosecutions, and I trust he'll do it.

[Occam Bandage]

3. No. It's really the AG's call, and he left himself an out when he said he didn't want

to criminalize policy differences. There is a difference, though perhaps not a clear-cut one, between the President ordering acts that he knows are against the law, and the President ordering acts for which he can present a comprehensive legal framework in which the acts are lawful American policy, but which the next President rejects as an invalid reading of the law. After all, we'd hardly want a President thrown in jail because he signed off on EPA regulations that the next President finds overstepped the agency's mandate.

I really have no idea either way if Holder is going to prosecute, and I imagine he doesn't know yet either. It'll all depend, realistically, if he believes there's going to be enough evidence to convict in court. If Bush/Cheney covered their tracks well, and there's therefore no chance of convictions, then Holder certainly isn't going to want to waste the Obama administration's time, resources, and political capital on getting Bush acquitted.

[Duer 157099]

4. I hope that's not true. I'll have to listen carefully to the rest of it

He made it so very clear that the history of waterboarding is not murky at all wrt it being categorically defined as torture, everywhere and all the time, no exceptions.

If he wiggles out of it citing some sort of exception, I'll have lost all respect for him, and hopefully he'll lose his own self-respect.

imho

[LakeSamish706]

5. To me, Holder's answer to "Is WaterBoarding" torture should tell everyone....

that he has to at least prosecute Cheney. Cheney admitted to having authorized torture on national TV.

[Duer 157099]

6. Agreed. But so did Bush, just the other day

didn't he? about KSM?

[billyoc]

7. Wrong.

The spirit of bipartisanship trumps all. :puke: