45 Responses to Rejecting the Joe Biden Gambit

1. newtonusr January 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm 1

   This

   I think we should be looking forward, not backwards

   is not what we had in mind.
   Thanks, Eureka.
   Dugg.

   Reply
2. perris January 10th, 2009 at 8:36 pm 2

   that is one powerful youtube and this is one excellant diary

   thank you eureka springs

   Reply
3. SunnyNobility January 10th, 2009 at 9:28 pm 3

   Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

   Thanks ES

   Reply
4. bobschacht January 10th, 2009 at 10:42 pm 4

   Biden can’t mean what he said. Does he mean to call for a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed before January 20, 2009?

   Or does he just mean a blanket amnesty for all appointees of George W. Bush for all crimes committed before January 20, 2009? If so, why do they get special treatment?

   Bob in HI

   Reply
5. wigwam January 11th, 2009 at 4:42 am 5

   Deterrence is a forward-looking notion. It’s what we do about the past to protect our future, and one thing we need to prevent in the future are imperial Republican presidencies. All five of the Republican presidents since Eisenhower have been involved crimes against the constitution and/or the pardoning of such crimes by Republican administrations. It’s time to put a stop to such behavior and stop the notion that Republican presidents should be above the law.

   BRING ‘EM TO JUSTICE!

   Reply
6. selise January 11th, 2009 at 4:50 am 6

   In response to bobschacht @ 4

   i’m guessing, at the very least, that biden doesn’t want us looking back because we might think lying the country into war would be something we’d like to look at.

   Reply
7. selise January 11th, 2009 at 4:51 am 7

   In response to wigwam @ 5

   Deterrence is a forward-looking notion

   thanks wigwam, i’m going to be using this one.

   Reply
8. wigwam January 11th, 2009 at 5:08 am 8

   Per “Bush’s Day of Reckoning” by Bob Burnett at HuffPo:

   […]

   Our tradition absolves top executive from responsibility for faulty decisions. It’s a unique “get out of jail free” card granted to the American executive class. The logic seems to be that our Presidents and our CEOs won’t think creatively if they’re constantly worrying about possible legal consequences. The result is to hold no one responsible for decisions that harm the common good.

   The Torture Commission should challenge the notion of executive immunity and recommend holding the President, and his cronies, fully responsible for the adoption of coercive interrogation policies. Checks and balances have to be restored. There should be a day of reckoning for the Bush Administration.

   If so, “I was just giving orders” will no longer be a viable defense.

   Reply
9. quinque January 11th, 2009 at 5:59 am 9

   How absurd is it that politicians and punditry have been going on for weeks now about the need for Blago investigations and impeachment, but consider doing the same to the Bush administration counterproductive and vindictive? Why does nobody ever highlight this blatant double standard? Are heads in danger of exploding from cognitive dissonance?

   Reply
10. bluebutterfly January 11th, 2009 at 6:04 am 10

    Bush, 30 Officials, To Be Named In Complaint On Torture To Go To Obama Administration
    Written by Sherwood Ross

    WAR CRIMES REPORT SAYS WHITE HOUSE REJECTED ALL ADVICE FROM GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT TORTURE WAS ILLEGAL;

    REPORT NAMES 30 HIGH BUSH OFFICIALS COMPLICIT IN TORTURE.

    President Bush and his aides repeatedly ignored warnings that their torture plans were illegal from high State Department officials as well as the nation’s top uniformed legal officers, the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, a new published report states.

    “These warnings of illegality and immorality given by knowledgeable and experienced (government) persons were ignored by the small group of high Executive officers who were determined that America would torture and abuse its prisoners and who had the decision-making power to secretly require this to be done,” said Lawrence Velvel, chairman of the “Steering Committee of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals.” The Steering Committee’s Report was drafted for the entire committee by Chair Velvel, a noted legal education reformer.

    The Report anticipates a more extensive, full scale complaint, currently being drafted, that will be presented to the Executive Branch after January 20th, urging prosecution of President Bush and those who aided him.

    “Far from American officials and lawyers authorizing or engaging in torture because it was lawful, they authorized and engaged in it because they wanted to (and) kept their actions secret from interested officials for as long as they could lest there be strong opposition to the torture and abuse they were perpetrating,” Velvel said. “They deliberately ignored repeated warnings that the torture and abuse were illegal and could lead to prosecutions, and they ignored these warnings even when they came from high level civilian and military officers.”

    A preliminary Report by the Steering Committee seeking Federal prosecution of American officials “who ordered, authorized, approved or committed war crimes,” released January 9th, 2009, says they are guilty of “wholesale” violations of statutes that include Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the Federal War Crimes Act, the Convention Against Torture, plus numerous other violations of U.S. and international laws.

    The Report said prisoners were subjected to savage beatings, sleep deprivation, slow drowning, hanging by chains, being slammed head-first into concrete walls, temperature extremes, food deprivation, burial alive in coffin-like boxes for extended periods, and even threats against their families.

    Among other things, the Report charges the General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), knowingly approved of at least 117 renditions to torture and that such renditions were “personally encouraged by President George W. Bush…”

    http://www.australia.to/index……8053719728

    Reply
11. ART45 January 11th, 2009 at 7:50 am 11

    One problem (not for me) with looking back is there’s no logical point in past time to say, we’ll stop here, and go no further.

    If it were up to, the inquiry would extend back not only to 11/22/63, but also to 12/7/41.

    Reply
12. wigwam January 11th, 2009 at 11:06 am 12

    Per “Obama Leaves Door Open To Investigating Bush, But Wants To ‘Look Forward’” by Sam Stein at HuffPo:

    The Obama transition team, as part of its efforts to open up the political process, had allowed web users to vote on questions for the incoming administration to field. To the top rose a query from Bob Fertik, president of Democrats.com and a former Clinton White House technology official, asking whether the incoming administration would appoint a special prosecutor to “independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping.”

    On Obama’s website, a December statement from Vice President-elect Joe Biden on the topic was offered as a response (similar older statements were used to address several other national security-related questions, which the transition team has avoided discussing). But Stephanopoulos made the matter moot by posing the question directly to the president-elect.

    Stein quotes Obama as responding:

    “We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth,” said Obama. “And obviously we’re going to look at past practices. And I don’t believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering up.”

    […]

    “I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general is that he’s the people’s lawyer. Eric Holder’s been nominated,” said Obama. “His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So ultimately, he’s going to be making some calls. But my general belief is that when it comes to national security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future as opposed to looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

    When asked by Stein to comment on Obama’s response, Fertik replied:

    It’s absurd to talk about “upholding the Constitution” and say “no one is above the law” if you refuse to look “back” at those who have subverted the Constitution and broken the law. And you can’t have one set of rules for “national security” and a different set of rules for everything else.

    So if there’s any hope for prosecution in Obama’s answer, it is that Attorney General Eric Holder will truly be “the people’s lawyer” and fully represent us by prosecuting torturers, wiretappers, and other criminals who committed their crimes from secret undisclosed locations hidden within the Bush-Cheney administration.

    Stein also quoted this earlier comment by Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel:

    We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation’s past transgressions and reject Bush’s corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation’s honor be restored without full disclosure.

    Reply
13. Eureka Springs January 11th, 2009 at 12:17 pm 13

    It’s interesting, how interrogations, detentions and torture are words we read and hear… But I don’t recall a mention of renditions. Which makes me wonder if rejecting, much less investigating renditions is off the table?

    Since folks like Mary and Selise have suggested renditions may have occurred during the Clinton administration… Maybe that’s why.

    Reply
14. selise January 11th, 2009 at 12:32 pm 14

    In response to Eureka Springs @ 13

    it’s what jane mayer has reported:

    OUTSOURCING TORTURE
    The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.

    In 1995, Scheuer said, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. “What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,” Scheuer said. “It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.” Technically, U.S. law requires the C.I.A. to seek “assurances” from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was “not sure” if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed.

    A series of spectacular covert operations followed from this secret pact. On September 13, 1995, U.S. agents helped kidnap Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt’s most wanted terrorists, in Croatia. Qassem had fled to Europe after being linked by Egypt to the assassination of Sadat; he had been sentenced to death in absentia. Croatian police seized Qassem in Zagreb and handed him over to U.S. agents, who interrogated him aboard a ship cruising the Adriatic Sea and then took him back to Egypt. Once there, Qassem disappeared. There is no record that he was put on trial. Hossam el-Hamalawy, an Egyptian journalist who covers human-rights issues, said, “We believe he was executed.”

    A more elaborate operation was staged in Tirana, Albania, in the summer of 1998. According to the Wall Street Journal, the C.I.A. provided the Albanian intelligence service with equipment to wiretap the phones of suspected Muslim militants. Tapes of the conversations were translated into English, and U.S. agents discovered that they contained lengthy discussions with Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy. The U.S. pressured Egypt for assistance; in June, Egypt issued an arrest warrant for Shawki Salama Attiya, one of the militants. Over the next few months, according to the Journal, Albanian security forces, working with U.S. agents, killed one suspect and captured Attiya and four others. These men were bound, blindfolded, and taken to an abandoned airbase, then flown by jet to Cairo for interrogation. Attiya later alleged that he suffered electrical shocks to his genitals, was hung from his limbs, and was kept in a cell in filthy water up to his knees. Two other suspects, who had been sentenced to death in absentia, were hanged.

    On August 5, 1998, an Arab-language newspaper in London published a letter from the International Islamic Front for Jihad, in which it threatened retaliation against the U.S. for the Albanian operation—in a “language they will understand.” Two days later, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, killing two hundred and twenty-four people.

    The U.S. began rendering terror suspects to other countries, but the most common destination remained Egypt. The partnership between the American and the Egyptian intelligence services was extraordinarily close: the Americans could give the Egyptian interrogators questions they wanted put to the detainees in the morning, Scheuer said, and get answers by the evening. The Americans asked to question suspects directly themselves, but, Scheuer said, the Egyptians refused. “We were never in the same room at the same time.”

    Scheuer claimed that “there was a legal process” undergirding these early renditions. Every suspect who was apprehended, he said, had been convicted in absentia. Before a suspect was captured, a dossier was prepared containing the equivalent of a rap sheet. The C.I.A.’s legal counsel signed off on every proposed operation. Scheuer said that this system prevented innocent people from being subjected to rendition. “Langley would never let us proceed unless there was substance,” he said. Moreover, Scheuer emphasized, renditions were pursued out of expedience—“not out of thinking it was the best policy.”

    Reply
15. Eureka Springs January 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm 15

    Thanks selise.

    I’m wondering if we should formulate a few simple questions and call or fax the Judiciary Committee member with them.. with encouragement to both ask them and demand answers.

    Isn’t the Holder hearing this week the next big test and perfect pressure point?

    Reply
16. Beerfart Liberal January 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pm 16

    i’m sorry man, this sounds serious. i better read it another time. i’m just….. i just….. i can’t/…… not now…..

    The Fucking Giants Lost!!!!!

    Reply
17. allan January 11th, 2009 at 5:38 pm 17

    And what does Obamanaut Cass Sunstein think of all this?
    From Chris Hayes:

    For Sunstein, the fact that Obama’s views “have never been simple to characterize,” that he is a “minimalist” who “prefers solutions that can be accepted by people with a wide variety of theoretical inclinations,” is his defining trait and chief virtue. This, Sunstein contends, is particularly salient in the wake of the Bush years. “Many people on the left want Obama to be the anti-Bush,” he wrote. “But what, exactly, does this mean? To some, it means a kind of left-wing Bushism–the mirror image of the Bush administration, with its rigidity, its insistence on enduring political divisions, and its ruthlessly Manichean approach to political life…. But in his empiricism, his curiosity, his insistence on nuance, and his lack of dogmatism, Obama is indeed a sort of anti-Bush–and perhaps the best kind.”

    So, people, let’s all take a deep breath, be less ruthlessly Manichean,
    and get with the program.

    Reply
18. Teddy Partridge January 11th, 2009 at 5:41 pm 18

    Criminals everywhere should be heartened by the Joe Biden Gambit. Just imagine how happy all the bank robbers, rapists, child molesters, and murderers must be to hear that our criminal justice system is now, somehow, no longer looking backward!

    Here’s a tip, Senator MBNA (if that is your real name): criminal prosecutions are for events that happen in the past, at least until we get to Minority Report reality. All crimes happened in the past. That’s when they happen; we prosecute them afterwards.

    Time to move forward? Sure — by looking back at criminal activity at the highest levels of government and prosecuting it!

    Reply
19. Eureka Springs January 11th, 2009 at 5:41 pm 19

    In response to Beerfart Liberal @ 16

    Is it still baseball season?

    Reply
20. Eureka Springs January 11th, 2009 at 5:43 pm 20

    In response to Teddy Partridge @ 18

    All crimes happened in the past. That’s when they happen; we prosecute them afterwards.

    Ding!

    Reply
21. barbara January 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pm 21

    In response to Beerfart Liberal @ 16

    Honey, hang in there. I feel your pain. My Vikes played the Eagles last week. Yeah, I know. Apples and oranges. Even so . . . . here’s my hanky for ya.

    Reply
22. eCAHNomics January 11th, 2009 at 5:45 pm 22

    In response to bobschacht @ 4

    Obama and his minions have been incredibly consistent about not prosecuting anyone from W’s admin. All the way back in July 2008 at Netroots Nation in response to a Q by me (and the variations of the same from the 3-4 who followed me) Cass Sunstein said they didn’t want to make policy differences into crimes. I’m telling you that they have no intention of holding anyone accountable.

    Reply
23. BooRadley January 11th, 2009 at 5:48 pm 23

    Dugg, thanks ES.

    Reply
24. barbara January 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm 24

    In response to eCAHNomics @ 22

    Policy differences???????????????????????????????????

    Reply
25. eCAHNomics January 11th, 2009 at 5:50 pm 25

    In response to barbara @ 24

    Yep. That’s exactly what he said. I was a floored as you.

    Reply
26. nahant January 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pm 26

    In response to Beerfart Liberal @ 16

    Aww Gee too f’ing bad! Next Year??

    Reply
27. SanderO January 11th, 2009 at 5:57 pm 27

    If you examined the slacker role of the congress you would see blood on their hands. Slacker may be too benign, many were cheerleaders for war and they embraced the xenophobia which gave Bushbots free reign to destroy America. They passed his nominees one after the other. They approved the “supplementals” to the tune of $500BB, they sanctioned the outsourcing of the killing and torture to private contractors outside the reach of law.

    Jeez the whole lot of them practically are war criminals. Of course they want to look forward. They haven’t been to answer at the bar of justice.

    Reply
28. allan January 11th, 2009 at 5:58 pm 28

    Shorter Cass Sunstein: The Third Way or the highway.

    Reply
29. Teddy Partridge January 11th, 2009 at 5:59 pm 29

    In response to eCAHNomics @ 25

    It was an excellent question and a revealing answer. It continues to resonate. Thank you for asking it.

    Reply
30. eCAHNomics January 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pm 30

    In response to Teddy Partridge @ 29

    Wild horses couldn’t have stopped me. Kinda like asking Wes Clarke if he were proud of having bombed the Serbs. *g*

    Reply
31. selise January 11th, 2009 at 6:06 pm 31

    In response to Eureka Springs @ 15

    I’m wondering if we should formulate a few simple questions and call or fax the Judiciary Committee member with them.. with encouragement to both ask them and demand answers.

    Isn’t the Holder hearing this week the next big test and perfect pressure point?

    i proposed a couple questions in lhp’s thread. i’m sure others could do better though.

    re hearings. holder i think is thursday. lots of hearings next week, i’ll have a list up in a little while.

    Reply
32. Eureka Springs January 11th, 2009 at 6:13 pm 32

    Excellent. I like them.. and brevity is nice, especially for those of us who call in with requests.

    question number 1) Is waterboarding torture?

    question number 2) Please explain in detail what is the AG’s responsibility under International Law to investigate and prosecute government officials for crimes in violation of the geneva conventions, laws of war and our own statutes?

    Reply
33. Eureka Springs January 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pm 33

    FYI, Siunshine is upstairs.

    Reply
34. SunnyNobility January 11th, 2009 at 6:14 pm 34

    In response to wigwam @ 12

    Stein also quoted this earlier comment by Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to head the Office of Legal Counsel:………………..
    nor can our nation’s honor be restored without full disclosure.

    So, is Cheney now giving us our “full disclosure” ?

    Reply
35. Hugh January 11th, 2009 at 6:32 pm 35

    Obama in his ABC interview today was also using the we need to look forward line too. Disheartening.

    Reply
36. oldoilfieldhand January 11th, 2009 at 8:48 pm 36

    In response to Eureka Springs @ 32

    Thanks E.S

    An additional question for the Solons.

    3. What exactly is the statue of limitations regarding premeditated war crimes?

    Reply
37. wigwam January 11th, 2009 at 9:00 pm 37

    In response to barbara @ 24

    Policy differences???????????????????????????????????

    Yes! To these assholes crimes against humanity are mere “policy diffeences.” It’s like Hannah Arendt wrote about in her book subtitled “The Banality of Evil.” Eichmann’s lawyer tried to dismiss the slaughter of millions of people in the gas chambers as mere “medical matters.”

    The banally evil among us always resort to similar abuses of language.

    Reply
38. selise January 11th, 2009 at 9:10 pm 38

    ES – here’s the hearing list for next week. lots of nomination hearings, including holder.

    Reply
39. x174 January 11th, 2009 at 10:05 pm 39

    that quote of biden’s to look to the future and forget about the past is right out of the CheneyBush playbook.

    VP biden = exquisitely lame

    Reply
40. redX January 12th, 2009 at 5:55 am 40

    “I’m not ruling it in and not ruling it out. I just think we should look forward. I think we should be looking forward, not backwards,” Biden said.

    Ummm…so far everything is going exactly as predicted (by myself and most others at this site). Sure I am happy Obama is in there soon and has a brain (and a pulse…but that is not enough).

    Reply
41. redX January 12th, 2009 at 6:04 am 41

    In response to ART45 @ 11

    Ummm… that makes about no sense at all. So since massive crimes were committed in the last 8 years, but since we are not willing to go back to the Big Bang just forget about everything.

    Its clear where to go back to – the point where the people commiting the crimes were (took) placed in power and started to do whatever the hell they wanted and cover up their crimes.

    The last installment of this is a very easy date to figure out. I will give you a clue, its the same day the lied and said Bubba Clinton had pryed all the ‘W’ keys off the WH computers.

    Feel free to have other investigators go further back but considering Ken Starr got 56 million dollars and 6 years to find out Bubba got a blowjob and lied about it I think we are covered there.

    The next one I would recommend is anything Bush 41 did in office to cover up the sloppy leftovers of Iran-Contra and any other crimes they committed.

    Reply
42. redX January 12th, 2009 at 6:09 am 42

    In response to Teddy Partridge @ 18

    Thank you. Your post says it all.

    I like the Minority Report reference (if you have not seen it is basically 1984 “thought crime” type thing but there are actually psychics that see the crime before it happens – then they arrest you before you do it.

    Reply
43. oldoilfieldhand January 12th, 2009 at 7:30 am 43

    Are we complicit? Suppose for a minute that the rest of the world that hasn’t been exposed to the Bush-Cheney Victory Lap and Bush History Revision 101 literally holds U.S. citizens responsible for torture and war crimes…what prevents any country in the world from detaining and charging Americans with aiding and abetting war criminals. Didn’t Bush say you’re guilty of terrorism if you feed, clothe or assist terrorists in any manner? didn’t we feed, clothe and honor the world’s leading terrorists? Ruh Roh!

    Reply
44. gbsavatar January 12th, 2009 at 10:11 am 44

    Seems to me this might better be called the Incumbent Criminal Gambit. In fighting this lawless meme I think we ought to offer a consistent corollary: yes, let’s, effective immediately, stop prosecution of all alleged crimes, stop investigations of any alleged crimes, and release all prisoners held anywhere in America who are imprisoned for past acts. We are now going to look forward and imprison people only for acts we believe they might commit in the future.

    Seems reasonable to me as a modest proposal. Afterall, the rule of law no longer exists in America.

    Reply
45. HotFlash January 12th, 2009 at 11:42 am 45

    In response to gbsavatar @ 44

    Aha! And that would mean that the prisoners in Guantanamo should stay there, because they are *future* criminals! It works like magic!

    Reply