The reason why some of us are opposed to a commission

[mmonk]

such as suggested by Rep. Conyers concerning criminal actions by the Bush Administration, is basically rooted in the history of commissions. For one, commissions are usually carried out by elected political representatives of parties who may have an interest in the truth being buried. Secondly, commissions historically have been "investigated" by these vested interests and are subject to objections by members in the direction the truth sometimes leads. Thirdly, they "investigate" with these different motives and directions in place, issue a report by the members, not justice's conclusions, and then become the official final word on the issue as far as written political history is concerned whether any real light was shone in any complete and honest way.

[blm]

1. And recall that both Bush and Clinton people insisted 9-11 commission go back ONLY to 1998 - why?

Because the truth about 9-11 is ROOTED in BCCI matters the DC power elite have worked decades to keep from American people and rank and file lawmakers.

End result: the 9-11 commission covered a bare 10% of the story.

[mmonk]

2. Yes, commissions do not cover the whole story they are charged with.

They are a placating move to quiet those that seek true justice, remedy, and public disclosure.

[Gman]

3. Sums it up nicely... K&R

[1776Forever]

4. mmonk - I 'm just learning about this matter & Conyers bill may not go anywhere...HR 104 info...

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/sleeper_bill_of_the_month.php

Sleeper Bill of the Month: Our Own Truth & Reconciliation Commission
By Elana Schor - January 9, 2009, 3:00PM

It happens more often than you might think on Capitol Hill: a new bill is announced by a congressional office, with little fanfare and fewer co-sponsors than it deserves but a purpose so abundantly sensible that the plan cries out for more attention.

Such is the case with H.R. 104, a bill introduced on Tuesday by House judiciary committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and nine other lawmakers. The measure would set up a National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties, with subpoena power and a reported budget of around $3 million, to investigate issues ranging from detainee treatment to waterboarding to extraordinary rendition. The panel's members would hail from outside the government and be appointed by the president and congressional leaders of both parties.

Sounds like a great idea. In fact, it sounds a lot like Senate armed services committee chairman Carl Levin's (D-MI) proposed interrogation-policy commission that has been kicking around since 2005. So why does such a good bill only have 10 co-sponsors?

The answer is complicated -- and neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have returned my calls to talk about it. But I'd wager that it has a lot to do with the Democratic majority's desire to turn the page on the Bush years and begin pressing on with an Obama agenda designed to showcase its ability to govern. Nothing wrong with that.

(snip)

Late Update: HuffPo spotted a Conyers appearance on the Bill Press show, in which the lawmaker suggests that the best forum for investigating Bush administration crimes may be the World Court or another international body.

Given that our current (still) president rejected the International Criminal Court -- though he had at least one kumbaya moment with the U.N. International Court of Justice -- it would be deliciously ironic to see Bush finally face the music on an international level. Still, wouldn't a domestically convened panel be the best, and most cathartic, venue for an inquiry like this?

Draft of H.R. 104 here: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-draft-bush-crimes/

.....

Thank you for the explanation.

[mmonk]

5. Thanks for your post of updated info on the matter.

An international court trial would truly be interesting. It might even add pressure to clean up our mess instead of scooping it under a rug.

[ima_sinnic]

6. Conyers has ZERO credibility. For years he asked us to sign petitions to impeach

and kept the carrot in front of us, continually vowing to begin impeachment. This "commission" would be nothing but a big whitewash, just like the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission. Both produced reams of paper full of meaningless BS.

A commission would serve two purposes: give the appearance that an "investigation" was actually conducted, and allow the traitors--bush, cheney et al. as well as the complicit people in Congress (including, apparently, Conyers himself)--to avoid any consequences or punishment whatsoever.

[slipslidingaway]

7. K&R n/t

[formercia]

8. I would prefer fair and due process for all involved

regardless of their political affiliation.

[bottomtheweaver]

9. Those are good reasons, but what's the alternative?

Would a commission be better than simply ignoring the torture, renditions, war crimes, domestic surveillance, and worse? My view is that in the absence of any other form of justice on the horizon, it would be better not to interfere with this one, as its chances of making it out of the starting gate are slim indeed to begin with, and I don't see a lot of Congressional action in this direction.

[bottomtheweaver]

11. p.s. my personal preference would be for lawsuits

brought by tortured or terrorized individuals, or class actions brought on behalf of any number of groups of victims. Unless Conyers' commission specifically precluded or prohibited separate legal actions, I don't think it would do any harm to at least keep the issues in the public eye, whatever it ultimately concluded.

[Festivito]

10. The rest have been appointed by Republicans, and failed to work.

(Johnson does not count. He was more along the lines of a Joe Lieberman in terms of being a bit of a jerk.)

It would be interesting to see if such a commission works when a good Dem puts in place.

Other than this gambit I pose, a different style of investigation would be near infinitely preferable.

[quiller4]

12. LBJ = Lieberman?!!

Maybe I am a little older than you are but I can't see the comparison at all.

[Festivito]

17. Yes, it's a wild stretch. Probably because I never did like LBJ.

GI Joe is hugely worse.

[H2O Man]

13. There needs to be

criminal investigations, and prosecutions of anyone who has violated the law. It's as simple as that.

[mmonk]

18. The question I have is what will transpire with a commission?

Or would it be better that a request for investigations into illegalities be given over to the Dept of Justice whereby a prosecutor can be appointed?

[H2O Man]

23. The most important thing

a commission can do, is to document what causes a specific problem/crisis, and to outline what actions can be taken to avoid a repeat of the problem/crisis in the future.

In the case of the Bush administration, very few people tend to question if there was or was not illegal activities and abuses of the power of office in the past eight years.

The Constitution specifies that the Congress has the sole authority to deal with abuses of power of office; this is accomplished in the civil court process of impeachment. The Congress can also hear criminal offenses in impeachment hearings, but can only produce a response in the civil court context. They can then refer a criminal case to the Department of Justice; a Congressional investigation without impeachment can be sent to the DoJ for evaliation, too.

A "commission" could potentially send a recommendation to the DoJ. However, it could also create conflicts that could hinder or prevent criminal prosecutions.

In any attempt to prevent a future problem/crisis involving political corruption/crimes, it seems obvious that a lesson which every cop and sociologist knows to be true: it is important that people who are tempted to commit a crime know that those who have previously commited the same crime have been arrested and prosecuted. It is theknowledge that arrest and prosecution are likely, rather the a lower chance of arrest with a higher likelihood of a significant penalty, that reduces crime.

[bvar22]

14. I don't believe Obama & The Democrats are interested in The Truth.

I don't expect our government will do anything except protect their money machine.

I have more faith in The Private Sector, and am willing to support a private group willing to pursue justice.

I will donate $500 to ANY organization that will place a Bounty on Bush/Cheney to be paid to anyone who provides evidence or sworn testimony that leads to their indictment or arrest.

A small, transparent trust located in a neutral country like Switzerland could administer the fund. If the BOUNTY is promoted internationally, it would quickly grow to Mega-Millions.

The fund would also be tasked with running full page Wanted For War Crimes ads in major Global newspapers every 3 months until the Bounty is awarded or depleted.

I believe that such a fund would be wildly popular worldwide, and provide the administrators an opportunity to make a little money.
I have neither the resources or skills to institute such a fund, but like I said above, I am willing to donate $500. I also believe that there are at least a million more worldwide (extreme minimum) who would also be willing to donate....that adds up to some serious money.

Wanted
for
WAR CRIMES


A $500 Million Dollar Reward will be paid to any individual, organization, or country that provides evidence or sworn testimony that leads to the arrest, or the issuance of an Internal Arrest Warrant for War Crimes committed by George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, or Donald Rumsfeld.

It is clear that the Opposition Party (Democratic Party) and the US Justice Department will do NOTHING to hold the criminals accountable.
A private organization representing Citizens of the World would have better results.


Even if Bush/Cheney are never arrested, a Mega-Million Dollar International Bounty would certainly keep them looking over their shoulders, and curtail "retirement in luxury" travel plans.

It would also put a nice ribbon around the Bush Legacy, AND serve as a warning to future "Unitary Executives".

[Selatius]

15. I favor a commission, but like you, I do believe it will be poisoned by powerful interests.

I favor a commission patterned after South Africa's own Truth and Reconciliation Commission established after the fall of Apartheid. That commission granted total amnesty to those who confessed all, but the amnesty was not given until after the confession and admittance of guilt. Those who resisted subpoenas were ultimately put on trial by the testimonies of those who did choose to admit wrongdoing and did ask for amnesty.

[derby378]

16. I call bullshit on that

How can you possibly support something that you know is destined to fail?

Torturers should not be given a pat on the head and told "You're a good boy, now don't violate the Constitution again." They should be hauled before a judge and a jury of their peers to account for what damage they have done to America.

Commission, hell. Bring on the Nuremberg Trials.

[Selatius]

19. It's all true. Why do you think the transition was not violent and devastating?

You think Nelson Mandela wanted a civil war so soon after the Apartheid regime was ousted? He could have demanded full accountability, Nuremberg-style, but he would be goading the white-nationalists into a civil war that the nation could ill afford. What he and others did was get them to admit guilt first before any amnesty was granted. He got his confessions. It's in the history books now. It was done so that all who would come after would know the history of what transpired in that country.

[mmonk]

20. I can't see Americans admitting to anything though.

[Selatius]

21. I could see a few mid-level staffers and some upper level folks doing it.

Paul Krugman is on the same train of thought that a few others at DU are on as well as far as such a truth commission goes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4851312

Richard Clarke could be one. Ousted Gen. Shinseki is another. The soldiers convicted at Abu Ghraib could be given a hearing to communicate whether or not superiors ordered them to torture prisoners.

[mmonk]

25. Plenty of people would talk if given the opportunity for sure.

I guess the question is what the venue will be. I prefer a legal proceeding because that is all people will believe would be real in this country. Otherwise, they are frankly not intellectually curious. The press is also a problem.

[mmonk]

26. And for clarification, I mean American leaders.

[derby378]

22. Last I heard, South Africa became a haven for thugs and bandits

Winnie Mandela herself was caught beating her assistants with a whip. That commission was worthless. Nelson deserved better than this.

[blm]

28. WHY? Because nation's already UNITED AGAINST BUSH, wanting his policies ended to never rise again.

So why on earth do you think the country would be violently opposed to a new administration and the promise of open government that is ACCOUNTABLE to the people - as is our RIGHT as citizens of this country?

[nodramamama]

24. The Warren Commission on the JFK Assassination

Comes to mind, as Allen Dulles sat on its board despite the fact that Kennedy fired him shortly after the Bay of Pigs. Now the WC is discredited and most Americans, including me, believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

[stillcool]

27. It is all we're going to get..

the "Classified Material" alone, will keep it out of the courts. I guess they would have to pick a crime, and it seems to be that 'torture', is the most popular, but also the most difficult considering our 'foreign policy' since WWII. That's a can that no one wants to open. I think that the world will have to take care of war crimes. I would like to see the Attorney General stuff see the light of day, as well as Pentagon Contracts, lying us into war, and Sybil Edmonds.