Okay. Enough is Enough, Bring on the Truth Commissions.

Forums: Politics, Partisan Bs, Truth Commission
Email this Topic • Print this Page

i'm officially fed up with all of this politcal strategist nonsense. pointing and inferring is taking too much time from our working together to get the country back in the black.

so here, as an american citizen, is what i, and you, should demand, now;

1) the establishement of a bipartisan (or even better non-partisan) TRUTH Commission, similar to the 9/11 commission. even some of the same people would be fine by me.

2) no more whining "requests" for this official or that to pretty please come and have a casual discussion with us, if it's not too much trouble.

issue subpoenas. and no screwin' around this time. you get subpoenaed, you better raise your hand and put your ass in the chair. don't show up? then the sargent at arms has somethin' for your ass. don't think you need to answer the questions? ever heard of contempt of court? again, the sargent at arms knows where you live.

3) we are going to get to the bottom of this whole damned Iraq/cia/ who knew what when/ cherrypicking intel nonsense. everybody is gonna come clean... or else. see #2

4) like i said, we've wasted enough time speculating. nobody is gonna skate. here's a few people i want to see at the top of the list;

nancy pelosi

john ashcroft

bob graham

george tenet

porter goss

michael hayden

richard clark

alberto gonzalez

richard cheney

bill clinton
--------------
feel free to add names of anyone else you want to see deposed under oath and televised.

holy ****, where's the tylenol!?!?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 11 • Views: 2,284 • Replies: 59

add bush and rumsfeld to the list

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

And if a congress person doesnt appear, they are automatically removed from office.
NOBODY will be allowed to plead the 5th, nobody will be allowed to not answer, and any answers we dont like will also result in immediate removal from office.

Do those rules sound reasonable to you?

3 Replies

@mysteryman,

Hell no you would turn this country into some south american banana republic.

Every time power is change in Washington we would need to sit through another round of witch hunts.

It would tear the country apart year after year.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Thats exactly my point.
We dont want to become a country that investigates and puts on trial every member of an outgoing admin.
That would eventually cause some future admin to decide not to leave power when they got voted out.

Are there some things that the previous admins have done that were either illegal or immoral? Yes, there are.

Do we need to dig up everything, from all previous admins and hurt people that were only doing their jobs? No, we dont.

I oppose any type of "Truth Commission", on the grounds that we would never get to the truth, because the people on the commission would be the ones determining what the "truth" is, and that would lead to all kinds of problems.
It would cause more then it would solve.

2 Replies

I think that it is time to let this one go. We know what was done, why it was done, when it was done, we know that it was wrong, and we know that all of our top national leaders were at least complicit in the crime. This energy is better devoted to "never again" pushes, to showing why those few who still are willing to support torture are wrong.

Obama and the Dems have made a mistake in trying to investigate this bit of history, there is nothing to be gained from it, to include nothing for the dem's to gain

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

And if a congress person doesnt appear, they are automatically removed from office.
NOBODY will be allowed to plead the 5th, nobody will be allowed to not answer, and any answers we dont like will also result in immediate removal from office.

Do those rules sound reasonable to you?

not so much.

i'm not so much interested in answers i like as i am in answers that are true. i have the feeling that some people did bad things and others made mistakes. we need to know who did what.

i've said that if they don't show up, they need to picked up and held until they comply. the punishment should really depend on whether a misdeed or crime was committed. but, i certainly wouldn't rule out anyone losing their cushy gig. or freedom.

about the 5th.... it's a constitutional guarantee. we have to leave it in place. we would have to accept it as "the answer". however, there's nothing that i'm aware of that says a person can't be relieved of their office. just can't jail 'em.

but perhaps one of our members with knowledge of the laws could clear that up and offer what remedies are applicable.

here's my bottom line on this stuff, mm. this crap is taking up time that could be used finding ways to keep the country from taking a crap, kicking the taliban's asses and finding bin laden. and considering that obama has put the official kabosh on torturing people, i'd say that the subject has moved down the list of "things to do today". not off the list, just farther down.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

You missed my response to bill earlier today.
Before I respond to your comments, I would ask that you read it and see what I was actually saying, and why.

You will find that we ALMOST agree.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Obama and the Dems have made a mistake in trying to investigate this bit of history, there is nothing to be gained from it, to include nothing for the dem's to gain

excuse me, but didn't i hear boehner, gingritch and anyone that could get face time screaming for pelosi's head all week??

wtf, guys? i've been posting for weeks that we have bigger fish to fry.

most of the demands for inquiries on the left side have come from people like olbermann and maddow. i like 'em both, but ****... enough already...

so maybe you guy's could give boehner and newty a call. tell them that you think it's a bad idea.

because, if the republicans insist on pelosi testifying, i damn well expect everyone else involved to be compelled as well.

and that was my purpose on this thread. let's **** or get off the pot about it.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

You missed my response to bill earlier today.
Before I respond to your comments, I would ask that you read it and see what I was actually saying, and why.

You will find that we ALMOST agree.

pretty close. i had already posted another post, so we're kinda leapfrogging. okay, on three, we stand still and count to five..

one.
two..

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

We dont want to become a country that investigates and puts on trial every member of an outgoing admin.
That would eventually cause some future admin to decide not to leave power when they got voted out.

If you read the Golden Bough that's how monarchy got going.

0 Replies

The most amusing part of all of this( which will not go away) is the battle between the Queen of San Francisco. Nancy Pelosi, who evidently is very very confused about what she actually heard in the hearings on Terror and Terrorists and the head of the CIA, the DEMOCRAT appointed by BO, former Representative Leon Panetta who insisted that CIA memos which indicated that Speaker Pelosi was at meetings where Waterboarding was discussed, are at loggerheads.

Note:

Did Pelosi Lie? [David Freddoso]

ABC's Rick Klein reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News. The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics
*************************************************************

ABC news HAS the memo from the Director of National Intelligence.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

That would eventually cause some future admin to decide not to leave power when they got voted out.

As opposed to just not lying us into war, torturing people, politicizing the justice department, selling our government to the highest bidder, removing economic safeguards that have protected us for decades, etc...

Any time you investigate or prosecute there is a chance it could be over something trivial, like a blowjob, but that should not prevent us from holding people accountable for essentially violating their oath of office and bringing our country to its knees. How much is enough?

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

... bringing our country to its knees. How much is enough?

the economy started crying uncle about 18 months ago.

we need you over here, ducks...
http://able2know.org/topic/132256-9#post-3655148

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

OK, answer this.

How far back do you want to go?
How far into previous admins do you want to investigate?
Kennedy?
Johnson?
Eisenhower?

If you want to do it, then lets do it right.

1 Reply

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that Free Duck does not know what he is talking about.

He wrote:

quote

Any time you investigate or prosecute there is a chance it could be over something trivial, like a blowjob, but that should not prevent us from holding people accountable for essentially violating their oath of office and bringing our country to its knees. How much is enough?

end of quote.

Free Duck either did not read or forgot that the INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF BILL CLINTON WAS NOT, I REPEAT,WAS NOT, ABOUT A BLOWJOB.

Note:

On Friday, December 11, the Judiciary Committee voted mainly along party lines to approve the first three articles of impeachment, accusing Clinton of committing perjury before Starr's grand jury and in the Jones case, and with obstruction of justice in the Jones case. Only one Republican on the committee sided with Democrats by casting a no vote on Article 2 charging Clinton with perjury in the Jones case.

On Saturday, the fourth article was approved, accusing Clinton of making false statements in his answers to the 81 written questions. The four articles were then forwarded to the full House of Representatives for consideration. Republicans controlled the House with 228 members compared to 206 Democrats and one Independent who normally sided with the Democrats.

************************************************************

The charges were:

l. Perjury

2. Obstruction of Justice

3. Making false Statements to Congress.

Get it straight, Free Duck!!!

1 Reply

I agree with DTOM, we should have a truth commission fashioned with bi-partisan people not currently in office kind of like the 9/11 commission no matter if anything gets done about any of it at the end of the day or not. At least the information will be out there to be sorted through and to be put into the history for future generations to look back on as examples of how far we can get afield when we let fear rule our country rather than long established laws and practices no matter even if the means did accomplish any ends, which is in dispute as well and likely will be with both sides picking what information suits them.

As far as what Pelosi did or didn't know, it is beginning to get murkey like all the rest of this stuff, at this point it is hard to know who to believe.

Quote:

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that the CIA’s briefing notes were wrong to claim she had been told about the use of waterboarding in 2002, former Sen. Bob Graham came forward to say that the CIA’s notes on briefings he attended were also factually inaccurate. Now, a former intelligence official who participated in congressional briefings told Talking Points Memo that the CIA was being “disingenuous” in referring to “enhanced interrogation techniques” in memos about 2002 and 2003 briefings, because the term was not formulated until 2006:

Almost every briefing described in the document " including the September 2002 Pelosi briefing that’s directly at issue " refers to “EITs,” or enhanced interrogation techniques, as a subject that was discussed. But according to a former intelligence professional who has participated in such briefings, that term wasn’t used until at least 2006.

That’s not just an issue of semantics. The former intel professional said that by using the term in the recently compiled document, the CIA was being “disingenuous,” trying to make it appear that the use of such techniques was part of a “formal and mechanical program.” In fact, said the former intel pro, it wasn’t until 2006 that " amid growing concerns about the program among some in the Bush administration " the EIT program was formalized, and the “enhanced interrogation techniques” were properly defined and given a name.

UpdateThe accuracy of the CIA's briefing notes were further called into question today when Rep. David Obey (D-WI) pointed out another error, in a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta. The CIA briefing notes say an Obey staffer attended a briefing, when he was actually turned away from it. Obey asked Panetta to "immediately correct this record."

links for statements at the source

0 Replies

This is not just a bad idea, it is seriously naive. It would be hilarious, were it not for the fact that i suspect the author of this thread is serious. Non--partisan? Please, you've got to be kidding. Politicians who were clever and on the way up would use this opportunity to stick knives in the backs of their rivals. Old timers might just decide to take a few people down with them. The public would soon come to resent the commission more than the accused politicians.

Like them or not, we need politicians to conduct the public business. Adding institutionalized witch hunts to the mix will not make them honest, but it will make their job that much more difficult, and will divert their energies and our money to a pointless exercise which will never be about anything other than getting revenge against a few people against whom other people have raged impotently.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Adding institutionalized witch hunts to the mix will not make them honest, but it will make their job that much more difficult,

Setanta, I understand your point and I am up in the air as to whether I agree with it.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that this not a witch hunt-- torture is not witchcraft. It is clear that torture really happened, and it is clear that torture is against American law and American values. I think calling this a "witch hunt" is misleading at best.

I would like to believe that the torture that happened under the Bush administration, in clear violation of US and international law and an affront to any sort of decency, is the kind of extraordinary situation that would justify a once in a lifetime investigation as a reaction..

I don't want every administration investigated. I do want all regimes of torture investigated.

The reason I am not sure I disagree with your position is because I understand the real limitations of any political system to do the right thing.

2 Replies

Okay. Enough is Enough, Bring on the Truth Commissions.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know