All those at the top who changed the law, ordered the “few bad apples” to “soften” up prisoners are rotting from the inside. Still want to witness them testify under oath.

Obama, Holder, Leahy, Whitehouse, Pelosi, etc etc “no one is above the law” “NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW”

We want to believe!

for the record, i now live in MA, thankfully (what a luxury to be comforted and enthusiastic with ALL three of my congressional peeps), but spent most of my life in the deep south. because i have family there still, i continue to spend a great deal of time in crazy red country, and can tell you, it’s a real eye-opener to encounter so much of what passes for opinions. so much fear, so much hatred.

so i feel for you in that bastion of such red sentiments. i know that’s hard (my brother lives in probably the reddest county in GA; how he managed running the county dems i’ll never know).

but i have no idea where you got the notion that i feel torture is a partisan issue. except as we see that it was the republican administration that insisted on installing it as policy. moreover, they did this with pretty clear intent to keep their actions from congress and the people and the press, especially from the democrats. to the extent that they did show something to congress, it was not forthright, and there was objection from democrats. not from republicans.

to this extent, there does seem to be a difference in how the two parties handled the circumstances. sure, the dems could have inquired more directly, pitched a hissy fit, made it public, etc. but even mora threatened to make it all public (and he knew more about what was going on than congress did), and he was just told it had been undone; he was lied to. somehow i believe that is precisely what would have happened had anyone in congress had made similar threats; it may well that is just what happened, who knows?

the abuse metaphor may not work for you, but there are others here who see the parallels (it wasn’t even mine to begin with). you may see the 06 elections as fully empowering the ‘mom’ dems, surrounding them with police and social services, but i didn’t see it as quite that clean a break from the nightmare and into the light. though the kids’ electorate had come round to actually seeing just how abusive daddy dick&W really are, those supports necessary for actually implementing the will of the people/kids had been – and still are – so weakened and debilitated as to be completely ineffective. correction; those supports – the media, the regulators, the watchdogs – they’d all been cleverly infiltrated. this is where comparison to the mafia comes in; they cover all the bases and take no prisoners. it’s the ultimate in the abuse dynamic; it doesn’t matter so much if the kids get it, or even if the mom gets it; getting it only means you’re at even greater risk.

and when you’re a mom at risk, you’re no use to the kids. especially when they’re at risk, too. serious dilemma.

you seem to see some sinister ‘deal’ between the dems and bush, a ‘carefully calculated…power deal’ mom made with daddy to shaft the kids. where is your evidence for this?

you may think that taking impeachment off the table (trust me; i was an early and very loud proponent) and hesitating on prosecution now constitutes dereliction of duty. now, you’re a lawyer (i’m not, i admit), but one thing i learned from watching the fitz was that you simply cannot move forward with a case until you have as much evidence as possible. i agree, it seems so clear, so unequivocal, to me, to us. but look at the way all this is playing in the media, how frantically the spin is thrown around to cloud the issues, how the testimonies in congressional hearings are dodged, how far the damn conversation is getting and we’re talking about TORTURE, and on and on. the dems may have exhibited a certain cowardice, i’m open to that possibility. all i am saying is that i think it is beyond unrealistic to expect every single one of our elected officials to be a hero; cowardice is not honorable, but it is not a heinous crime (nor is it listed as a requirement for office), especially when compared to what the dick and the W have done.

moreover, i do find it unhelpful to presume that, not only were the dems cowardly, but they ‘conspired to contravene law’ in a huge ‘political and power pay off.’ you have no evidence of this, and certainly as a hypothesis, there are alternative explanations that could account for the behaviors you see as so craven. you can choose to assume they were sinister and totally self-serving, but i’m willing at this point to acknowledge that there may have been other, more complex factors involved. not black/white; loads of gray.

were i to take this personally, i’d be particularly offended by your assumption that i’d “be the one fighting to let mommy and daddy keep [the kids] so that daddy would have them to abuse too and mommy would have company.” where did this come from? having dealt with similar situations in my profession, i can tell you that, despite your insistence that these things are so black and white, they are virtually never so clear. so many mitigating circumstances intervene it makes the head spin. and it is simply the case that all too often, though the mother may know on a conceptual level that she needs to leave her abuser, and the kids can cognitively recognize the dynamic for what it is, emotions get in the way and they get confused and blame their mother, and she gets taken in yet again by the abuser’s lies, or worse, weakens in the face of threats. you approach this as if an abusive household is just so obvious and we can waltz in and restore the kids to mom and give her a brand new home and a new ego and self-confidence and haul daddy off to jail. but it just never – and i do mean, NEVER – works out like that. never. it inevitably takes a lot of time and patience and understanding because the abusive relationship did not just happen overnight; it has an extended and complex history, as do each of the players.

as does this country that finds itself where it is now.

so let’s do get real for maybe more than a minute. things are such a mess – still – that it will take a long long time to recover. so we have to concentrate on that recovery. in an abuse situation, what do you do? you focus very carefully on the perp; get the guy behind bars, best you can. you absolutely do NOT go after the mom! or the kids. she may be behaving weakly, the imperfect mother of course, but she is not the culprit here.

perhaps you did not follow the analogy closely enough (thereby explaining some of the miscommunication); if you place an abuse victim in the WH; that would be the perp. and of course no one knowingly voted in ‘abuse victims’. but if you look at how all this happened, the fact is we were ALL abuse victims in this. we ALL got knocked around and bashed and battered in this mess, though some of us recognized it faster than others, some of us within weeks after 9/11; i have no doubt you did. but others, most of the others were drawn in from the beginning and it took over 7 years to get it. to realize they were victims of a lying, criminal, shameless, abusive power monster that insisted we were all being abused for our own good, our own ‘protection.’

and so it goes. sheez, i don’t want any of that pathology running the country any more than you do, but we get pretty much what we are as a nation, and what we got is the clear legacy of manipulation and propaganda and fear-mongering, with a dose of laziness. this is the way of democracies, certainly this one. we end up having to accept what the masses decide, and the masses are not all as careful and discerning as you are. to then turn around and go after the dem leadership sorta misses that point. while i honor what you did during this crisis – glad you spoke out, so did i, even shared a blog, campaigned, wrote letters to congress, the whole 9 yds – you might want to consider getting even more active with your ample intelligence and knowledge and passion. run for office, contribute to the aclu, volunteer your legal expertise, whatever. i have no doubt you’d be a stellar participant in any endeavor you choose (though i’m not sure ‘public fights’ are terribly productive). but i’m simply saying that maintaining a cynical attitude, accusing the dem leadership of being in bed with bush, while that energy could be better focused on the real perps, none of that is going to really further what we need make these first painfully difficult steps of getting out of this nightmare.

and i’m not saying to let the dem leadership off the hook. when the time comes, when we have the real culprits exposed and prosecuted, hopefully punished, plenty of details will come out implicating those who did not do enough. i’m not sure that in itself is a crime, but it is shameful, and that comes with its own punishment. i respect the fact that you’re a lawyer and take on an adversarial stance over clear, legal right and wrong issues. i’m a psychologist; i deal in human nature. if you want to get ‘real’ you might consider that imposing the law in ‘clear’ black and white terms is not exactly the logical way to go. the law is abstract and ideal, something we all strive to adhere to, but even in the face of our best intentions, real circumstances and our own fears and needs just tend to get in the way sometimes. this does not necessarily make us criminal or even depraved. it just means we’re human. news flash: lawyers aren’t the only ones out there who are faced with ethical decisions on a regular basis.

still, i pick to stand squarely against the crimes of the bush administration and focus all my energies on that. and if you knew me even in the slightest you might have some bare clue just how seriously i personally take the question of making those daily ethical decisions, both professionally and personally. i just do not choose to require that choice of every human on the planet. my elected officials, sure, that’d be great, that’d be ideal; but my vote only goes so far. that’s the down side of democracy, i suppose. i can live with that.

Many in the Bush Administration committed numerous violations of our Constitution and Federal Laws, including Obvious Violations Of Our Torture Laws.

Everyone in Congress and the White House took and Oath to enforce our Federal Laws and protect our Constitution.

Failure to prosecute the Bush Administration members who conspired to Torture will brand Congressmen and Senators as Soft On Crime,
and as supporting a dual system of justive in America, one for politicians and another for we voters.

The Congress and Obama can still redeem themselves but failure to do so will radically change the results of the next two elections.

Thant may be the “change” the Democrats promised us
but the Voters will deliver.

SIGN THE PETITION To Prosecute Them For Torture
AT

ANGRYVOTERS dot ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Over 250,000 have signed

Join them and call yourself a Patriot

.

I live in Western Kentucky and work in Southern Indiana and you won’t find two much “redder” areas. I didn’t start talking about torture and abuse and lawbreaking this year, or last year. Or the year before. Or the year before that.

I not only don’t see torture as a partisan issue, I will say that I cannot find any common ground with you on that point. I don’t pick a party affiliation, then decide how I feel about the actions. If you do, that’s your gig but its not how law works and it shouldn’t be how credible decisions are made.

I didn’t miss the conversations on the poor abused “mom victim” Dems, but the analogy isn’t apt IMO. Especially not after the 2005/2006 work done to empower the Dems by the grassroots. What you ended up with in 2006 was “poor mom” surrounded by police, social services, etc. – all asking Mom to press charges and they were ready to go. Instead, “poor mom” carefully calculated the benefits to her on making the kids stay with abusive dad and working out a power deal with him, and she took charges off the table, knowing what that meant.

A “mom” who conspires to contravene law to keep the kids with the abusive father because it will have a payoff, in this case political and power pay off, instead an object of sympathy.

Oddly, I heard the exact same things about my comments not being helpful and not being “support the troops” beneficial from all the Bush supporters I live and work with. I’m actually not all that interested in being helpful at covering up crime, or being helpful at keeping the country commited to 10 more years in Iraq, or being helpful at leaving the Summers/Sachs cartel free to run amok, etc. I also think that pressure is helpful.

I guess under your analogy, I’d be the one pushing to get the kids to a safe place; you’d be the one fighting to let mommy and daddy keep them so that daddy would have them to abuse too and mommy would have company.

Let’s get real for a minute. We are talking about running the nation. I have lots of sympathy for abuse victims, I’ve been a guardian ad litem. Would I vote to put an abuse victim in the White House or make them Speaker of the HOuse? No. Sorry if that’s tougher than what you want to hear, but sympathies aside, the nation doesn’t need to be run by timid victims so wrapped up in their fears that they will eat their children to pacify their abusers. If that’s what you really feel about them, that would be my response. I don’t think that’s the situation, though. I think that they are very willing to use their kids out of their own power plays, not their fear of victimization. OTOH, I don’t want that leading the country either.

What would I have done? Who knows – I only know what I did do. The public fights I had with friends and family and strangers – and pastors.

I also know that every lawyer, some very young and very wet behind the ears, gets asked to do very bad things at some point. You either say yes or no, and there are always consequences for no while there are only sometimes consequences for the yes. You pick where you stand.

Family of Secrets
By Russ Baker – May 26, 2009, 2:22PM

“In trying to comprehend how the improbable world leader George W. Bush rose to the top and executed an array of radical policies, I began digging into the Bush family’s history for clues.

. . .

“A turning point came when I discovered that the elder Bush, long before he was CIA Director, led a double life–behind his public roles as an oilman, politician and diplomat–working on highly sensitive covert projects with the intelligence community. This research into George H.W. Bush’s clandestine activities led me to a profoundly new understanding of several seminal events in this country’s history, including the JFK assassination, Watergate, and the destabilization of the Carter and Clinton administrations.

. . .

“There is a virtual taboo on exploring the true domestic reach of the wealthy, banking interests, the spy services, military and military contractors. “

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme…..f_secrets/

I had a huge argument with my brother who thinks blogs are stupid and that he can get what he needs from teh news. He also felt that “right” path is to move forward, that cheney will never be prosecuted and that this is just the way it is. It made me very sad.

I can’t understand that position and yet, I can. I know that those of us who are inclined to accountability probably need to continue strongly in that path. I do believe that the truth will set us free…and believe to some degree that this is a long held pattern of behavior for the usa to perpetrate and then cover it up. From the American Indians, to slavery, to japanese americans in world war II, to war crimes in regard to vietnam, the list is endless.

Where do we begin if we are to ever be the country we strive to be?

Accountability is key in any kind of rehabilitation…but it is absolutely the most difficult dynamic to create.

Congress IS guilty of violating their oath. They did not protect the nation or the constitution. Many of them caved in a way that creates major cognitive dissonance. Now they might be held accountable and this puts them in the position of continuing to minimize, deny and blame right along with the perp. It happens in d.v all the time. We hand her all the tools to leave, to prosecute and to win. However, she fears the retaliation that will come. The fight. In that fight she knows she wasn’t perfect and she knows that anything she did that was not exemplary behavior…or “perfect victim”, means she could be held accountable. Why?? Because the perp will always try to shift the focus to everyone else…you made me do it, it was your fault…hey look what YOU did.

These dynamics are part of the nature of being human. Also, victimization like this…causes a self centeredness and self righteousness. What likely starts to happen is that the dems see themselves as “the good ones” and “the right ones”. They start to take on the mentality that says that anything they do is okay because they are “defending” themselves. This creates a tunnel vision about survival that does nothing for the universe or society.

The dynamics of victim and perpetrator invade many interaction in life…and my humble opinion is that understanding this dynamic, creating effective and validating interventions that seek effectiveness over the perpetuation of either role is the only way we will ever find peace. Look at Israel and Palestine. A great study in victim, perp dynamics and how invalidation perpetuates violence.

The line between perp and victim is not black and white and is often blurred.

i know it may seem absurd to suggest we find some mercy for the dem leadership in their dilemmas when the bushies were planning torture, for chrissake. but i also wonder where we stop showing mercy; my line is at the top, bush and cheney and rummy and condi and the lawyers. they did it; they committed these crimes. the dems did not do enough to stop it, perhaps, but then we’ll never know how things might have gone had they tried harder, will we? i’m just trying to point out this should not be our focus; address it, sure, but focus on the crimes and criminals. god knows there are plenty of those.

not an argument in favor of breaking the law, but it is an argument in favor of mercy. just as punishments for crimes fall along a gradient from minor to heinous offenses, taking into account all manner of mitigating circumstances such as intent and insanity and self-defense, i should think we could muster some such similar gradient in our rhetoric regarding the dems’ behavior throughout the bush administration. for chrissake, they weren’t even driving the getaway car and you seem to want to see them fry along with the dick and the W. what’s that about?

i’ve repeatedly stated that i tend to lean toward the bold stand myself, and find it hard to imagine that i would have chosen otherwise. in that respect, i am right there with you. but in requiring, demanding these heroics of every single person out there is not just folly, it’s brutal. there is rule of law, and there is wisdom. i’m only encouraging perspective.

oh, and my sense of our soldiers’ charge is that, by and large, they’ve been sent out to fight and die not for the constitution but for corporate power. so ass-fattening enjoys a long tradition here, as it has the world over. this is nothing new; it’s human. i decry it just as you do, but the trend will certainly not reverse simply because you insist on it.