boingboing — 2014-05-06T15:46:00-04:00 — #1
nixiebunny — 2014-05-06T16:04:02-04:00 — #2
Thanks a lot, Obama. I never thought things would change; a lot of my friends did. I'm sorry to have to say "I told you so" to them.
petzl — 2014-05-06T16:05:44-04:00 — #3
Someone still has to explain to me how the CIA got away with destroying their torture tapes in 2005. Not for obstruction of justice, no. But because torture is so useful and practical (and legal), they should've just been prosecuted for arbitrarily destroying CIA records.
vonbobo — 2014-05-06T16:12:57-04:00 — #4
Well, I told my friends you would come here and gloat about being right.
bass — 2014-05-06T16:18:10-04:00 — #5
Why wait for a leak? Demand that your congresscritter get it released or you'll vote for someone else.
Note: This only works if you've got the balls to vote for someone else, and so does everyone else who wants to see the report. Most politicians simply wait it out knowing full well that public interest will quickly shift to something else.
Oops, I guess I just gave a justification for asking/begging for a leak!
joe_b — 2014-05-06T17:27:27-04:00 — #6
There's another way, and it's much less risky for whoever decides to do it. It's the Speech or Debate Clause of the US Constitution, and Sen. Mike Gravel used it in the Vietnam days to get the Pentagon Papers on the record. The Senate Intelligence Committee could decide to hold a public hearing, read the report aloud and enter it into the Congressional Record and the executive branch would be powerless to stop this. No one but the Senate itself could punish a senator for revealing secrets in this way. They could kick someone off the intelligence committee or even expel a member, but no further prosecution would be possible.
zachstronaut — 2014-05-06T18:37:59-04:00 — #7
Constitutional crises (crisises?) are exciting! Every once in awhile somebody is in contempt of congress, and you hear about the Sergeant at Arms and jail cells at the Capitol. I like your suggestion of reading things into the record. I think there's a lot of epic, Hollywood-quality drama possible with three co-equal branches of government. Given the subject matter -- the alleged perpetration of crimes against humanity -- it isn't even particularly sensationalist to advocate for the use of any one of these fancy tools our branches of government never use.
Immunity is a nasty thing. If people in our government are getting caught violating the law, it sure seems like it would be a lot better for them to stand trial and be found innocent because they were found to be acting in extraordinary or emergent circumstances. That outcome seems a whole lot better than refusing to discuss things and writing blank checks of immunity.
I won't pretend like we'd ever see a head of the CIA or a President go to jail for making national security decisions.
steve_nordquist — 2014-05-07T01:16:24-04:00 — #8
Don't they have a duty to punch it up rather than leave it pretending it's not stewing in its own Nations' Mandate or Double Indemnity International Premium Lite? Sunlight with sunlight in is the only brand.
kimmo — 2014-05-07T08:52:15-04:00 — #9
Ever notice how one of the fundamental group dynamics is how polite people are being? At one end of the spectrum is an orderly queue; at the other a riot.
Well, now the 'because fuck you, that's why' cat is well and truly out of the bag, the powers that be are turning the bread-and-ciruces dial up to 'firehose' in order to distract us all from their evaporating excuses for legitimacy... and of course, it'll only get uglier from here on in.
boingboing — 2014-05-11T15:46:13-04:00 — #10
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.