The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

Nice analysis, Aldeth.

 

You can take notes at classified briefings, it's just those notes are then considered classified. They must be documented and recorded and tracked. It is possible to do this, but it takes a lot of work.

While the average Joe sitting in the meeting does not have the resources to do this, a member of Congress does -- although it would be easier not to take the notes. For me, I took notes in many classified briefings, then turned the notes over to be destroyed -- I remember things I write down much better than I remember things I hear. Of course, I was at much lower level briefings that Pelosi was at -- the rules may be different when you get to some levels.

 

It doesn't really matter because the majority of the waterboarding occurred BEFORE Pelosi was briefed. Bye, Cheney.

 

Chandos, what do you think - realistically - is going to happen to Cheney as a result of all this?

 

And the obvious... Cheney is already gone. Biden is the VP. I thought you already said your good-byes amidst all the cheering a few months ago.

 

This isn't really the point, though. We are a nation of laws, and just as a catholic priest who allegedly abuses a little boy doesn't get out of standing trial by leaving the church, the President and Vice President shouldn't get out of standing trial by leaving office. The question isn't one of whether or not they are still in office, but whether they committed a crime while they were there.

 

No sitting president is going to take a former president of vice president to trial.

 

Like a big fat hemrrhoid, I didn't know he was going to keep coming back.

 

I'm not so sure of this (the only real precedent we have is Ford's pardon of Nixon -- and Ford was Nixon's Vice president), but it's still beside the point. For Bush/Cheney to go to trial, Obama doesn't have to do a damn thing. The Justice department, not the president, gets to decide whether or not a crime has been committed -- and whether or not to press charges.

 

That's why Obama's going to classify Cheney as an enemy combatant; so he doesn't have to try the former VP.

You call me paranoid now, but just wait.

 

Sorry I'm a little late to respond here. In response to T2B, I don't know whether note taking was prohibited or just made annoyingly difficult enough that no one wanted to go through the trouble of taking notes. That was not the most important point I was making - it was that the official account of what took place may not be accurate.

Another aspect of the notes has been brought up that while circumstantial, calls their accuracy into further question. Throughout the notes on the days these briefing supposedly took place, they use the acronym "EIT" which stands for "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques". There's nothing odd about that at first glance except this: the dates of the meeting were in 2003, and no other official document from the CIA uses the EIT acronym until 2006. In other words, the term "enhanced interrogation techniques" was not yet used to describe the treatment of prisoners at the time the briffings supposedly took place. In the 2003-2005 time frame, all other CIA documents call out the specific method (e.g. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc.) and never use EIT as a term. Then, in 2006 EITs become part of the common parlance in CIA briefings. While this is not iron clad proof, it certainly suggests that the notes to these briefings were prepared not in 2003, but sometime since 2006.

 

This is of course true, but Obama can have a lot to do with it -- his encouragement one way or another will hugely influence the Justice Department's decision.

The other thing that I want to mention to clarify my position is that prosecutors make the tough decision of whether or not to prosecute a suspect all the time. They determine if a conviction is likely based on the evidence they have available. They also determine if prosecuting the criminal is in the public interest, especially if they believe a conviction is not likely.

In an ideal world, Bush and his henchmen would certainly face charges. I agree with you there, Drew, for we are nations of laws. But all nations are also nations of pragmatism, and if the benefits don't outweigh the costs, it ain't gonna happen. In this particular case, knowing the absolute Mongolian Cluster <Hump> that would result if charges were laid. It'd take years of complictaed legal wrangling, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of taxpayer dollars, and it would polarize the country even more than it already is. IMHO, not worth the price.

 

On that we respectfully disagree, LKD. Deciding not to punish the president for committing a war crimes because it's "too expensive" sends a message that we don't want to send -- namely that wealth and privilege are sufficient grounds to avoid criminal charges for even the gravest of offenses.

 

I don't think we disagree all that much, Drew -- you'll get no argument from me that it IS a horrible message to send. But I guess that I am more cynical than you, though, because I believe that message is, unfortunately, true. I don't like it, but the fact remains that in Western societies wealth often shields people from the consequences they deserve.

 

In this case, though, it doesn't have to. Held up against the other costs of running our country, the cost of investigating and (if necessary) charging the outgoing administration for any crimes committed through the judicial system is but a pittance; whether charges are pressed or not and as long as the whole thing is handled by an a-political justice department, the dividends down the road will also be well worth the cost.

A nation of laws doesn't just enforce those laws when it's convenient or cost effective.

 

It happens often enough, but that does not mean we (as society) should accept it. If blatant cases are not prosecuted it means that the entire phenomenon is legitimized. Just because it happens doesn't mean we have to accept it - just as we do not let murderers, rapists and swindlers off the hook because such things happen.

As for the costs, monetary costs in this case would not be particularly high when compared to everything else. It is political costs that all actors are imo looking for, no matter what they say.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30884459/

Well, you see "every" Democrat should be investigated. That was my point earlier, that Republicans will investigate ANYONE with whom they disagree. One has to deal with the Repulbcans by the strict letter of the law. Obama should in turn, show them the Rule of the Law. My point is that it doesn't matter who it is, even as far as politics are concerned. Cheney should do his time, like anyone else who breaks the law.

 

Yes, we do. If there is insufficient evidence, or if damning evidence is poisoned and therefore rendered inadmissable because the police did not follow procedure to the letter, we let the vilest of criminals go free -- particularily if they have a lot of money for a fancy lawyer.

Remember OJ? IIRC, a civil court found him 'responsible' for the death of his wife but the criminal court had been logjammed by that Cochrane fellow and he was found "not guilty" for the death of his wife. The US system nay be one of the best on the planet, but don't tell me that it's infallible - it bloody well isn't.

Prosecutors know that, and so as I said, they have to do a cost benefit analysis (costs also including the political/social costs, as you mentioned, Shaman) of a possible prosecution.

 

OJ stood trial, LKD, and he got off because the prosecutors were incompetent. The precedent you would need to find is a time we decided not to charge someone at all -- not because we didn't have the evidence, but because we thought it was too much trouble.

 

Umm, Clinton? It's been a while since this happened, but I seem to remember he could have easily been found guilty of abuse of power (or something), purjory, and a few other "white-collar" crimes. The general consensus as to why he wasn't (at the time, in my circle at least) was that his VP worried everyone even more than he did.