14 Responses to Bush Truth Commission – Senator Leahy Has a Petition

1. Millineryman February 12th, 2009 at 12:31 pm «

   Digg is open.
2. foothillsmike February 12th, 2009 at 12:50 pm «

   Thanks for posting this here.
• Millineryman February 12th, 2009 at 1:01 pm «

  You’re welcome. Thanks to Jane for allowing us to share these things here and providing us a platform to get involved, take action or rant.
• Jim White February 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm «

  I’m gonna rant. I called Leahy’s office today and told them that I couldn’t sign their petition. I want criminal investigations and nothing less. Check out the Gallup poll data I just found: a huge majority of Americans favor an investigation of some sort, and among those, more favor criminal investigation than a truth commission.
• Millineryman February 12th, 2009 at 2:32 pm «

  Good move Jim. The louder the voice the better since it seems some politicians have selective hearing.
3. Kitt February 12th, 2009 at 2:49 pm «

   I’ve expressed my disagreement with even the suggestion of a truth commission in place of criminal investigations and prosecutions. And please, don’t tell me that the truth commission will uncover information that could lead to investigations. That’s what the investigation, not the truth commission, would be about.

   Hasn’t anyone asked Leahy how he defends pushing for truth commission instead of prosecutions? I know he has some horse manure statements about it but has he said anything that is not just the professional BS’rs line of a Senator who happens to be in a position to propose garbage while trying for all he’s worth to make it smell like flowers?
• Millineryman February 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm «

  I hope you expressed this to Senator Lehy’s office.
4. perris February 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm «

   I hope this post gets front and center at the lake, I would like to see over a million people respond and the lake gets plenty of traffic
5. RichardKanePA February 12th, 2009 at 9:24 pm «

   The South African Truth Commission accomplished amazing results. Most people when Apartheid fell expected a government similar to what happened in Rhodesia, now Zambia, but the Truth Commission helped prevent such a turn of events.

   Unfortunately in Yemen there was a somewhat similar amnesty program where terrorists were let free by apologizing for their ways and agreeing that bin Laden’s interpretation of Islam was far harsher than in the Koran. Jamal al-Badawi who was involved in the in the attempt to sink the US warship called the Cole was turned over to Yemen for execution but escaped. He turned himself back into Yemen authorities, as part of the Amnesty program agreed to amend his ways and was released.

   Now he calls himself second in command in al Qaeda of Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda hasn’t yet attacked Yemen again, so far baiting Yemen to attack them so al Badawa and others can claim the Yemen Government not al Qaeda violated the amnesty agreements.
   http://capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/14654
   So a Truth Commission might fail against a powerful intact group like al Qaeda or with CIA insiders.

   But the choice so far seems to be either a Truth Commission or no investigation at all. And a Truth Commission, it should be clear, has a clear advantage over doing nothing.

   Also see,
   http://www.phillyimc.org/en/ob…..ment-32408
   http://capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/15268
   RichardKanePA Google RichardKanePA
• mcartri February 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am «

  “A Truth Commission… has a clear advantage over doing nothing.” Richard, this is a clear statement of false choices. Commission or nothing is NOT the choice. The “Commission” is doing nothing. The Constitution is very clear that there isn’t a choice here. The former president & others have admitted to war crimes. The Constitution DEMANDS they be prosecuted! There is NO choice to be made.
6. wigwam February 13th, 2009 at 5:04 am «

   As far as torture is concerned, Bush and Cheney have already proudly admitted what they did and have arrogantly encouraged President Obama to do the same, advice that Obama politely declined.

   As I said in the comments to JimWhite’s diary, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes ratified treaties binding law, and those ratified treaties require us to prosecute or extradite those accused of torture, no exceptions. Either President Obama is going to fulfill his Arrticle II obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” or he is not, in which case, he should be impeached in order to encourage future presidents to read their job description and take it serious.
• perris February 13th, 2009 at 5:32 am «

  As I said in the comments to JimWhite’s diary, the Supremacy Clause of Article VI makes ratified treaties binding law, and those ratified treaties require us to prosecute or extradite those accused of torture, no exceptions. Either President Obama is going to fulfill his Arrticle II obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” or he is not, in which case, he should be impeached in order to encourage future presidents to read their job description and take it serious.

  TOTALLY AGREE

  on top of that, I think he should be impeached so to disabuse any future congress of ANY notion that “if we don’t impeach them they won’t impeach us”
7. mcartri February 13th, 2009 at 8:51 am «

   Leahy’s “Truth Commission” has but one purpose: That America’s war criminals are indeed above the law. How naive of us to believe that there was some message in the Nuremberg Trials. By the way Sen. Leahy, it’s not about what you or Obama want. It’s about what the Constitution DEMANDS: Investigate, prosecute and imprison the guilty. If the former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, and Joe Blow the bank robber can sit in prison, why can’t George & Dick join them?
8. bonzo1958 February 13th, 2009 at 12:29 pm «

   He can put his *truth commission* where the sun doesn’t shine. bush and cheney ALREADY ADMITTED to authorizing torture and there’s no need for a commission to find that out.