CALL Leahy's Office and Tell Him NO TO IMMUNITY!!!

[garybeck]

K&R this thread if you think people who committed war crimes and spied on americans deserve more than a slap on the wrist and a "get out of jail free" card!




Senator Leahy wants to give immunity to bush administration officials who were involved in torture and spying on americans.

On TV the other day, he said by having a "truth commission" with this immunity, all the facts would get out and this would prevent people in the future from doing the same types of things.

There is no logic in that statement at all. You know it. I know it, and HE knows it. By offering immunity the message you're sending to people in the future is that they WILL get away with it and powerful people can do whatever they want and they're above the law.

Senator Leahy has said many times, "no one is above the law." Well his truth commission is the ultimate example of hypocrisy because by giving immunity, he is putting them above the law.

Senator Leahy has an online petition to get this hypocritical, unamerican truth commission going. DON'T sign it!

Call Senator Leahy's office today and tell him you DO NOT want a truth commission with immunity. Tell him that will only encourage people in the future to do these things again and show that powerful people are above the law. Tell him NO ONE is supposed to be above the law and his immunity is equal to saying they are above the law.

Tell him YOU WILL NOT SIGN HIS PETITION. Tell him you are disappointed with the suggestion that a truth commission with immunity would prevent future crimes because in fact it would do the opposite. Tell him the way to prevent future crimes is to PROSECUTE CRIMINALS. That is what the purpose of the American Justice system is supposed to be. Tell him that his immunity would be very damaging to our country and our future. Tell him that instead of giving immunity to these people, we need a prosecutor to investigate these crimes and to prosecute the criminals who are responsible. That is the ONLY way to prevent it from happening again.

Leahy's Washington office:
[phone]


K&R this thread if you think people who committed war crimes and spied on americans deserve more than a slap on the wrist and a "get out of jail free" card!

[babylonsister]

1. No. When did he say he wanted to give immunity to anyone? What

about this from yesterday?

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Leahy_Truth_commission_may_be_only_0211.html

Leahy Says Bush Officials Could Be Prosecuted

[garybeck]

2. Dude, you have to read the article, not just the headline!

the headline on that Raw Story article is extremely misleading. Read the article. In the interview he goes on and on about why we need to offer immunity to these people. He only says that people might be prosecuted if they commit perjury. So as long as they tell the truth, they go free. And if they lie, they get a relatively short sentence for perjury when they really should rot in jail for high crimes.

don't just read the headlines. that one is really the opposite of the article. I love raw story but that is bad journalism.

read the whole article, or watch the video on Maddow. then you'll see what he really wants to do - give immunity to all these folks.

[babylonsister]

9. I saw the Maddow interview, and I wasn't impressed either.

I just think if we fight a commission, nothing at all will happen. If horrors come out of the testimony (and we know they're out there), I think it would be hard to sweep it under the rug.

From today, this: might give some of Obama's people food for thought...



Poll: Most Americans want inquiry into whether war on terror tactics broke the law

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON — Even as Americans struggle with two wars and an economy in tatters, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds majorities in favor of investigating some of the thorniest unfinished business from the Bush administration: Whether its tactics in the "war on terror" broke the law.

Close to two-thirds of those surveyed said there should be investigations into allegations that the Bush team used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. Almost four in 10 favor criminal investigations and about a quarter want investigations without criminal charges. One-third said they want nothing to be done.

Even more people want action on alleged attempts by the Bush team to use the Justice Department for political purposes. Four in 10 favored a criminal probe, three in 10 an independent panel, and 25% neither.

The ACLU and other groups are pressing for inquiries into whether the Bush administration violated U.S. and international bans on torture and the constitutional right to privacy. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and his Senate counterpart, Patrick Leahy, have proposed commissions to investigate.


more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-11-investigation-poll_N.htm

[JackRiddler]

15. "If horrors come out of the testimony (and we know they're out there)...

...I think it would be hard to sweep it under the rug."

Exactly. Proper strategic thinking. Right now the fight is against those with the broom, who would block a venue of any kind. The keys for an investigation are committed, independent, serious personnel who won't tolerate cover-ups, serious discovery -- muscular subpoena power -- and no limits or blocks on what questions may be pursued. And immunity is a key too, because it gets testimony from a few who to allow a start. Once revelations come, once crimes are detailed, an avalanche will ensue. A few may escape with immunity for testimony, what can you do? Would you rather have the real history be suppressed altogether, and then it's 45 years later and people are still debating the magic fucking bullet?

[Iwillnevergiveup]

3. Yeah, I saw that online petition

and didn't sign it. Time to call.

K&R

[garybeck]

4. yeah, sometimes not signing a petition is not enough.

this is one of those times.

i just called.

[loudsue]

33. We need to call EVERY member of the Senate Judiciary committee, and HOUND 'em

about the two systems of justice in this country. I'm sick & tired of it.

:kick:

[Hubert Flottz]

5. Hermann Göring would have loved to have had some of Pat's

"IMMUNITY!!!"

[MorningGlow]

6. I just got an e-mail from Robert Wexler's office

He's taking a survey of what we think is important to focus on. One of the options (you could pick three) was prosecuting the previous administration. The next question was to pick what was the most important of the three you chose. Guess which one I picked!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

8. Wexler's e-mail list

needs to hugely grow - I forwarded that onto a few folks I suspect aren't on it. He is one of the few consistently on the case.:kick:

[Iwillnevergiveup]

7. The staffer in Leahy's office tried to rush me

but I made the point - I ain't signing that petition. Conyers has PLENTY!

[MiniMe]

10. You can't force people to implicate themselves

They can claim the 5th amendment, like the peanut plant owner did yesterday. Sometimes, if you want information, you have to give somebody immunity which forces them to testify about what happened. It's not like they would give Bush or Cheney immunity. You give an aide immunity. Or a secretary. They have to be pretty sure about what information they will get before they give immunity though. And if they lie, they can still be prosecuted for perjury.

[garybeck]

13. wrong

the immunity you are referring to is typical of any criminal investigation. yes, subordinates are offered immunity, as part of the effort of getting to the truth so that ultimately the criminals can be prosecuted.

this truth commission is not anything like that. he wants to give immunity to everyone involved, in an effort to show the american people what really happened. the goal is to expose the truth, not prosecute criminals.

just because someone might take the 5th, doesn't mean you give up and give them immunity. It's a well known fact that most of the time when someone takes the 5th, they are GUILTY. and most of the time a decent presecutor can work around that.

I have no problem with offering immunity on a case by case basis to key lower ranking officials who were just following orders and could point the finger. NO problem at all with that. But that's not what Leahy is suggesting. he wants a truth commission with immunity for everyone. That is complete BS.

[JackRiddler]

16. Please clarify "immunity for everyone"

A truth commission model involves immunity for those who testify, and that only if they testify truthfully. For example if Libby comes in and implicates Rove, does that mean Rove also receives immunity even if he hasn't testified?!

[garybeck]

22. the stated goal of the commission is to bring out the truth, not prosecute criminals

"the only way to get the truth out is to offer immunity"

that statement is complete bullshit.

read between the lines... the truth commission should be called an "immunity commission."

[JackRiddler]

28. That still doesn't mean "immunity for everyone."

Do you prefer the Clinton solution of 1993? Because that may be the only alternative.

Perhaps Leahy is aware of what can actually be tried under the present circumstances, or even has a strategy for changing thsoe circumstances by first gaining some key revelations of criminal behavior.

Keep in mind he was one of the targets of the anthrax operation. And yet he is now among the handful of lawmakers suggesting any kind of pursuit of the Bush crimes. Maybe he actually wants justice?

On another thread someone asked me, "Is justice served if no one is prosecuted for explicit war crimes just because everyone knows they were committed and by whom?"

The answer can only be relative to the alternative. It would be better served that way than under the reigning alternative, in which even the fact of whether a given crime of state was committed remains in question and is banished from being mentioned in acceptable public discourse.

Certainly future justice would be better served, if past crimes are fully exposed, even without punishment of the past perpetrators.

In the US, the major parapolitical crimes of state have never been exposed to the point of undeniable consensus, have never even been open as a respectable subject of study. Parapolitical players always relied on having their actions remain sufficiently secret or mysterious or "plausibly deniable" that they still get to define reality and policy through the means of covert manipulations. That might change if the role of parapolitics can no longer be obscured as "conspiracy theory."

Even a revelation and consensus on the full story of the JFK assassination, at time when perhaps none of the perpetrators remain alive for prosecution, would still move the world and create a (partly) different future.

It's never wrong to get at the truth and roll back the culture of secrecy that allows the greatest crimes. It's better than total escape for the perpetrators.

[garybeck]

30. just read Leahy's own words:

"I think because of the fact it's very, very public and the way they find out about it, it makes it very clear to the next person, you try the same thing, you are going to be found out, you are going to be prosecuted," Leahy said.

this remark makes no sense.

he's saying "we won't prosecute you this time, but NEXT time you better watch out."

any 3 year old kid knows this is bullshit. they keep taking from the cookie jar and ignore threats like this until you ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING.

[JackRiddler]

34. Okay, but please acknowledge my point...

An official, governmental forum establishing the truth of various cases for the purpose of public education and the historical record, in an undisputable fashion with confessions and documentations, would in fact "ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING" that is almost completely without precedent in American history.

I agree with you that it's not satisfactory, assuming your interpretation or theoretical case (i.e., they all go free).

Can you agree that it would be without precedent, and may serve to change the world in a positive fashion after all? Can you agree that it would be highly preferable to the Clinton solution of 1993 (i.e., absolutely nothing is revealed, all is denied, the perpetrators prosper in the private sector and storm back to power eight years later to commit even worse crimes)?

Example: if the engineers of the electoral fraud and coup d'etat of 2000 were to establish it as an undisputed fact, and yet get off without punishment, would this not be an enormous step above what we have now, where even the fact is still subject to dispute (by weak-minded and dishonest characters, to be sure, but nevertheless)?

Do you not think that would serve a preventive function, once the people know their history based on the facts, and not on the constructs of radicals (albeit correct)?

[garybeck]

43. yes, it would do something....

it would let criminals go free.

like Constitutional Law Expert John Turley said, we don't need a truth commission. We need a grand jury.

it couldn't be any simpler in my mind.

a grand jury and indictment and prosecution will bring out all the facts just as much as the truth commission. the only difference is people actually get what they are supposed to get, under the law.

[JackRiddler]

46. Here's the thing...

Do you really believe it's Leahy's hope to let the criminals go free? I think he just wants something, anything to get going before it's too late.

This is the US and you are talking about ruling class criminals. Grand juries and jury trials can mean many years of motions and bullshit and appeals and criminals also going free and even claiming in the end they were the ones persecuted and making a comeback: Like Oliver North and John Poindexter. Please note these important precedents.

A truth commission, on the other hand, may break the ice if it can bring out a few crown witnesses through the offer of immunity; effective prosecutions of the rest might follow as a result.

You can't say for sure which is the more certain strategy. You should seek to build a coalition for justice, not declare Leahy your enemy for suggesting a truth commission! I don't understand why you need to be dogmatic about what the right answer is at this stage, when the first fight is to dispense with the sweep-it-all away mentality that has the upper hand.

The focus has got to be on Holder and Obama and the holdouts in Congress who will all want NOTHING to happen, not on Leahy as the enemy!

The ideal is a USA or a special prosecutor (or a slew of them) pursuing justice for the Bush regime crimes, without a doubt. But note another famous and dismal failure: "Fitzmas." Prosecutors aren't necessarily worth shit, in other words. It all depends who the prosecutor is, whether they've got the brains and the metaphoric balls.

Let's face it, a lot of great-seeming ideas for bringing the criminals to justice have failed, no one should pretend they have the certain solution. In the end it comes down to who the personnel are and whether they really mean to tough out this battle, regardless of what the initial venue is going to be.

[EFerrari]

41. I know I shouldn't be surprised but as the Chairman of Judiciary,

Leahy is the LAST person who should be advocating this. :grr:

[garybeck]

26. he did say that if someone refuses to testify that they could be prosecuted

i will give you that. but that's a lot of ifs, and I just think the whole thing is going about it backwards.

you should be investigating crimes and pursuing criminals. if and when it is necessary you selectively offer immunity to subordinates who have valuable information. that's how it's normally done. Why deviate from this model?

his plan is the opposite - offere immunity to everyone. no goal of finding the criminals or prosecuting them. just go where it leads and see what happens and offer immunity to anyone who will testify. maybe it leads to prosecution, but that's not the goal. the goal is just to get the truth out. WFT?

immunity should be offered on a case by case basis and used very selectively.

[JackRiddler]

29. I would prefer a Nuremberg process...

I happen to think Leahy's approach is likely to gain the first traction you need to maybe actually getting to that necessary point. I doubt very much he's proposing a truth commission because he wants the Bush regime to get immunity -- he's doing it presumably because he wants the truth, as opposed to no truth.

[MiniMe]

19. What I heard Leahy say on Maddow was to use immunity similiar to how

Conyers used it. I have no problem with that. You still can't force somebody to implicate themselves, which may be what they would do if they didn't have immunity.

[garybeck]

45. as i've said many times, selective immunity is fine.

but he's talking about a big immunity party for everyone who wants it. just watch the interview. there's no two ways about it. he said, if someone chooses not to testify, they would be susceptible to prosecution. that implies that everyone who steps forward is immune. that is not what we want. NO NO NO!

Let a prosecutor who understands the law decide who he needs to give immunity to.

It's time to seat a grand jury and prosecutor. we don't need a truth commission.

[AndyA]

11. I've already signed the petition. I don't recall seeing anything about immunity.

That would seem to be a very important part of the petition that should have been pointed out.

Was this included in that petition? If not, I feel I've been intentionally misled.

[garybeck]

14. read / watch this:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Leahy_Truth_commission_may_be_only_0211.html

he clearly wants immunity in the commission.

[mmonk]

12. Tell him to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.

Commissions are where truth and revelations of government wrong doing go to die.

[ThomWV]

17. My impression was that he was talking about immunity for testimony

I can probably live with immunity for testimony simply because those most responsible will never testify before Congress. Cheney will never sit before a hearing, neigher will Rumsfeld, Yoo, Addington, Gonzo, none of them will. So if immunity is given to attain evidence against higherups then I can live with it. However immunity only to lower level folks, not the top.

[EFerrari]

39. If they are given immunity up front, the prosecutor has less to bargain with, doen't s/he?

[garybeck]

44. there's nothing wrong with giving immunity on a case by case basis

to key subordinates who have valuable information.

that's not what he's talking about.

he's talking about a truth commission that offers immunity to everyone who testifies. a big round of "Kumbaya" with murderers and teasonists, trading a few public remarks for a "get out of jail free" card.

immunity is always used in certain cases with certain witnesses, as well it should be. but we don't need big open forum with everyone getting a free pass. that would prevent prosecution for people who may have committed serious crimes.

Let the prosecutor decide who deserves immunity and what they trade for it. Don't offer free immunity to everyone who wants it. that is not what our justice system or our country demands.

i am very disappointed with my senator.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[garybeck]

21. complete bullshit

every study on torture has proven that people will say ANYTHING including LYING to get the torture to stop.

it's also illegal and turns us into a country of hypocrisy.

it doesn't prevent terrorism. it creates it.

[bobthedrummer]

24. Fwiw, I alerted about this post, President Obama is not going to follow Bush's criminal "policies"

[newtothegame]

27. More time reading and discussing, less time desperately searching for trolls...n/t

[bvar22]

31. Hmmm. You seem to know too much about 9-11.

Maybe YOU should be tortured so we can be safe.
Just to be sure, we should also include your family and friends.
I suspect there may be a terrorist embedded there somewhere.

Ve haf vays of making you TALK!
I'm sure that after a few sessions, you will admit your complicity in 9-11 and implicate your family and friends.


A suspicion by a low level psychopath was ALL that was needed under the Bush administration to imprison and torture. No review, no oversight, no trial, no due process, no communication, no lawyer...


Whether you like it or not, we ARE a nation of LAWS based on our Constitution.
You should read it sometime.

[gordianot]

20. It figures, I have been praising Leahy this morning probably way too early.

I guess Leahy is following Cheney's advice.

Sounds like a "Truth and Reconciliation" approach. On the other hand the jails are probably not big enough to handle the possible influx. I would like to see some prosecution. Start a Depression and get out of jail free. There needs to be some consequences. I thought we won the election.

[Dinger]

23. K & R (nt)

[newtothegame]

25. There will be no punishment for lies...

Politicians, major ones, have been lying to and in front of Congress for years, from Reagan to Clinton to Bush. There are no punishments. Clinton got it the worst and all he got was disbarrment in his own state. No federal punishments for any of these bastards.

I'm not for immunity, but we wouldn't need it if all those calls that Seymour Hersh was supposed to get on inauguration day came in. Wasn't his office supposed to be flooded on January 20th? Hello? Seymour Hersh? You still around?

[loudsue]

32. This SOOOO pisses me off. We KNOW what the "truth" is, and so does Leahy.

Why do Americans have to continue to tolerate TWO systems of justice in this country? One for the rich and powerful who break laws that hurt MILLIONS of people, and get no punishment, and then the OTHER system of justice where some dude sells an ounce of pot, and hurts no one, and spends 25 years in prison.

This is so fucking out of balance I can't take any more of it. Leahy knows damned good and well what crimes were committed, and if bush, cheney, rumsfeld, gonzales, et al were PUNISHED for the crimes, the truth would be evident.

NO MORE TWO SYSTEMS OF JUSTICE!!!!!

[bvar22]

35. Leahy can try to protect .....

...his RICH, White Friends (fellow aristocrats), but the CRIMES they committed were INTERNATIONAL. Many people were KILLED and MAIMED outside the US borders, and the World is watching.

If Obama & the Democrats don't act quickly, or try to WhiteWash it with a phony "Truth Commission", the World will NOT go along. Obama & The Democrats will OWN the War Crimes if they try to brush them under the rug.


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, arrest, or the issuing of an International Arrest Warrant.

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....enough money to tempt any NeoCon who saved some evidence to protect themselves.

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 travel plans.

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

[WhiteTara]

36. he staff was very polite and thanked me

for my views. She seemed as though she had received many calls like this. She even finished my sentence....you want to see this taken a step further.

[EFerrari]

37. Kick

[EFerrari]

38. garybeck: I called and said that Bush admin corruption is still affecting us today.

Ex: FBI mishandling of anthrax case. FBI is part of Bush DoJ and we know Bush DoJ is filthy. (Voila.)

The person who answered the phone was very nice, fyi.

[garybeck]

42. you confused me

with your name change :)

i'm going to have to get used to that :)

thanks for calling Leahy!

[EFerrari]

40. Link to the "Members" page of Senate Judiciary Cmte:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm

[Hubert Flottz]

47. A Friday 13th Kick...

Kick...

Fuck playing these same old shit political games with these elite right wing thugs war criminals and murderers!

We're either a nation of laws or we're a nation of outlaws.

Church Commission DID NOT WORK...we need to separate CHURCH from state and look to the Nuremberg Tribunal for a final solution to people who do OUR business like the GESTAPO did things.