WikiLeaks Reveals Obama Protected Bush:

[Ozmar]

The current MASTERS calling the shots of this economy?

Ken Chenault -American Express
Ken Lewis - Bank of America
Robert Kelly- Bank of New York Mellon
Vikram Pandit - Citigroup
John Kowskinen - Freddie Mac
Lloyd Blankenfeld -Goldman Sacs
Jamie Dimon - JP Morgan Chase
John Mack - Morgan Stanley
Rick Waddell - Nothern Trust
James Rohr - PNC
Ronald Logue - State Street Bank
Richard Davis - US Bank
John Stumpf - Wells Fargo

You forgot:

Xotoxi Alabacalala - Bank of Ar

I keep a low profile on these matters.

You forgot this guy:

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, I do.

In fact I suspect that the depression we could have would make the 1929 depression look mild by comparison.

And you know it would not take a malicious plan on the part of the world's billionaire class for this to happen, either.

It ALMOST happened in 2008.

Had the FED not invented new procedures to prop up the largest banks, they'd have been insolvent.

And had they gone down, every other bank in the world would likely have followed.

I think we'd have been facing a complete worldwide financial diaster.

Nothing would have moved, and the financial chain reaction would have caused a collapse of modern society.

And FWIW, I don't really think we're that far removed from such an event happening again.

We've done nothing to change the way business is conducted, so I have no reason to imagine that the high stakes gambling (dereivatives) that set us up for the big collapse (when the RE market collapsed) couldn't happen again.

When you say "nothing would have moved..."

Would that likely have produced unemployment levels of 25% or 50%?

Trying to imagine details of an economic collapse that makes the Great Depression of '29 appear mild by comparison seems like a task for a novelist or screenwriter; however, such a story might well begin with a megabank like Bank of America going down in flames like Enron in 2003.

"Involuntary transparency" might come with a much bigger price tag than most of us are willing to pay. Personally, I've been homeless numerous times in my life so the shock of losing 99% of my possessions AND my shelter in a single day wouldn't be a virgin experience.

For millions of others, however, especially those with children, their first time would be an authentic bitch.

I wonder if Assange gives any thought to the mass misery (and worse) he might be inflicting on society by "taking down a bank or two."

Is Bank of America...

No information he gives will take down any bank, he will hopefully take down the people who run them and put them in jail.

There are people who are capable of running these banks who can resist fucking everyone that walks.

What do you think happens if B of A and/or JP Morgan Chase acquire the same distinction Enron did in 2003 - namely - becoming the largest bankruptcy reorganization in American history?

Enron also held the title of biggest audit failure at the time of its bankruptcy.

Enron - Wikipedia

 

[georgephillip]

While six Bush officials certainly were protected from prosecution, I think the article is misleading. To say that Obama and GOPers worked together to kill Bush torture probe suggests that under different circumstances, the Obama administration would have allowed the Spanish judiciary to press charges in matters that were beyond Spanish jurisdiction.

NO US PRESIDENT WOULD EVER ALLOW THAT!

That's the point here. President Obama was protecting a longtime US principle.

The issue is NOT that the crime was committed on Spanish soil or that it was an internationally-recognized crime under Spanish jurisdiction. The issue IS that some Spanish judge brought it upon himself to seek criminal charges against six US officials whose actions were legal under US law. Even within the Spanish government, there was disagreement on the validity of these charges to the point where they admit that these are largely political rather than based on some point of law.

I think the Obama administration did the right thing. I don't see how it had any other choice.

To put this in the lowest common denominator, this is the equivalent of a US soldier being charged with murder for killing an enemy combatant on the battlefield. The United States legally approved the military action, but some overzealous chief justice in another country is attempting to charge the soldier with murder because they politically do not recognized the legality of the US action. It's the same thing here with this so-called "torture probe."

Would you agree the longtime US principle Obama was upholding was American Exceptionalism?

"The issue is NOT that the crime was committed...or that it was an internationally recognized crime under Spanish jurisdiction. The issue IS that some Spanish judge brought it upon himself..." to hold the US to the same standards as the rest of the world?

Look at the six characters named in the indictment:

"The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel.

"The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's 'universal jurisdiction' law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents.

"Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria."

It seems to me the global war on terror would be advanced significantly if criminals like Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee and Yoo were punished for their crimes.

 

[Toome]

While six Bush officials certainly were protected from prosecution, I think the article is misleading. To say that Obama and GOPers worked together to kill Bush torture probe suggests that under different circumstances, the Obama administration would have allowed the Spanish judiciary to press charges in matters that were beyond Spanish jurisdiction.

NO US PRESIDENT WOULD EVER ALLOW THAT!

That's the point here. President Obama was protecting a longtime US principle.

The issue is NOT that the crime was committed on Spanish soil or that it was an internationally-recognized crime under Spanish jurisdiction. The issue IS that some Spanish judge brought it upon himself to seek criminal charges against six US officials whose actions were legal under US law. Even within the Spanish government, there was disagreement on the validity of these charges to the point where they admit that these are largely political rather than based on some point of law.

I think the Obama administration did the right thing. I don't see how it had any other choice.

To put this in the lowest common denominator, this is the equivalent of a US soldier being charged with murder for killing an enemy combatant on the battlefield. The United States legally approved the military action, but some overzealous chief justice in another country is attempting to charge the soldier with murder because they politically do not recognized the legality of the US action. It's the same thing here with this so-called "torture probe."

Would you agree the longtime US principle Obama was upholding was American Exceptionalism?

"The issue is NOT that the crime was committed...or that it was an internationally recognized crime under Spanish jurisdiction. The issue IS that some Spanish judge brought it upon himself..." to hold the US to the same standards as the rest of the world?

Look at the six characters named in the indictment:

"The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel.

"The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's 'universal jurisdiction' law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents.

"Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria."

It seems to me the global war on terror would be advanced significantly if criminals like Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee and Yoo were punished for their crimes.

We are Americans. We are not Spaniards. If we were in Spain and committed a crime in Spain under Spanish law, then we are subject to whatever international agreements exist between the US and Spain. Other countries have the same type of agreements. In most cases, the agreement is that we are subject to the laws of the host nation. However, there are exceptions....by agreement between affected countries...to this general rule. It is why diplomats enjoy immunity; it is why soldiers stationed overseas fall under Status of Forces Agreements rather than host country laws.

I find your argument comparing Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee and Yoo with international terrorists quite weak. The men you mentioned are subject to the laws of the United States and, if guilty of any crime, will be punished accordingly.

By the way, I believe that terrorists are valid military targets. I believe that we have the right to hunt them down and plant two government-issued rounds of ammunition right between the eyes. I don't believe in torture not because of some naive belief in human rights or other hand-holding, Kumbaya-singing philosophy. I don't believe in torture because I know for a fact that it does not work. It is counterproductive.

I don't believe the United States engaged in torture. However, I do believe that waterboarding is a huge mistake, and the US should discontinue its use immediately. I also believe that so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are also counterproductive and should be discontinued. I don't classify them as torture techniques, yet. But we are headed down that path if we allow ourselves into accepting them as valid interrogation methods. They certainly open the door to torture, but they are not torture.

I've seen victims of torture. What the United States has done during the GWOT doesn't even come close to torture.

 

[Harry Dresden]

That is what they do.

They are trained to hate anyone with a d after their names.

They do it no matter what that person says or does.

Hell they vote against bills they wrote to do this.

ok....so people like you and Dean hate anyone with a "R" after their names.....and you two do it no matter what that person says or does......whats the difference?.....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A "confidential" April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.
Obama and GOPers Worked Together to Kill Bush Torture Probe | Mother Jones

The principal purpose of prosecuting criminal actions is deterrent. The inevitable effect of interfering with the prosecution of crimes is assurance that the same crimes will be repeated in the future.

Obama's actions in this matter show him to be just another deceitful politician who serves the same masters as did the predecessor he'd protected. Obama cannot be trusted.

This is one reason why they're out to get Julian Assange! Just one!

And these rightwinged whores here call Obama a Liberal?? LMAO!!! They are fools!!

That is what they do.

They are trained to hate anyone with a d after their names.

They do it no matter what that person says or does.

Hell they vote against bills they wrote to do this.

And tomatoes write with pickles on the red draperies lawn out by the peanut butter pool

 

[georgephillip]

While six Bush officials certainly were protected from prosecution, I think the article is misleading. To say that Obama and GOPers worked together to kill Bush torture probe suggests that under different circumstances, the Obama administration would have allowed the Spanish judiciary to press charges in matters that were beyond Spanish jurisdiction.

NO US PRESIDENT WOULD EVER ALLOW THAT!

That's the point here. President Obama was protecting a longtime US principle.

The issue is NOT that the crime was committed on Spanish soil or that it was an internationally-recognized crime under Spanish jurisdiction. The issue IS that some Spanish judge brought it upon himself to seek criminal charges against six US officials whose actions were legal under US law. Even within the Spanish government, there was disagreement on the validity of these charges to the point where they admit that these are largely political rather than based on some point of law.

I think the Obama administration did the right thing. I don't see how it had any other choice.

To put this in the lowest common denominator, this is the equivalent of a US soldier being charged with murder for killing an enemy combatant on the battlefield. The United States legally approved the military action, but some overzealous chief justice in another country is attempting to charge the soldier with murder because they politically do not recognized the legality of the US action. It's the same thing here with this so-called "torture probe."

Would you agree the longtime US principle Obama was upholding was American Exceptionalism?

"The issue is NOT that the crime was committed...or that it was an internationally recognized crime under Spanish jurisdiction. The issue IS that some Spanish judge brought it upon himself..." to hold the US to the same standards as the rest of the world?

Look at the six characters named in the indictment:

"The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon's former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel.

"The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation's 'universal jurisdiction' law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents.

"Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria."

It seems to me the global war on terror would be advanced significantly if criminals like Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee and Yoo were punished for their crimes.

We are Americans. We are not Spaniards. If we were in Spain and committed a crime in Spain under Spanish law, then we are subject to whatever international agreements exist between the US and Spain. Other countries have the same type of agreements. In most cases, the agreement is that we are subject to the laws of the host nation. However, there are exceptions....by agreement between affected countries...to this general rule. It is why diplomats enjoy immunity; it is why soldiers stationed overseas fall under Status of Forces Agreements rather than host country laws.

I find your argument comparing Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee and Yoo with international terrorists quite weak. The men you mentioned are subject to the laws of the United States and, if guilty of any crime, will be punished accordingly.

By the way, I believe that terrorists are valid military targets. I believe that we have the right to hunt them down and plant two government-issued rounds of ammunition right between the eyes. I don't believe in torture not because of some naive belief in human rights or other hand-holding, Kumbaya-singing philosophy. I don't believe in torture because I know for a fact that it does not work. It is counterproductive.

I don't believe the United States engaged in torture. However, I do believe that waterboarding is a huge mistake, and the US should discontinue its use immediately. I also believe that so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are also counterproductive and should be discontinued. I don't classify them as torture techniques, yet. But we are headed down that path if we allow ourselves into accepting them as valid interrogation methods. They certainly open the door to torture, but they are not torture.

I've seen victims of torture. What the United States has done during the GWOT doesn't even come close to torture.

If we define terrorism the way the FBI does as "...the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives, then Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee and Yoo AND their superiors qualify as terrorists by virtue of the terror they've helped to inflict on the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're right when you say we're Americans and not Spaniard; however, prominent Nazi's who fled the Reich and were arrested in South America did not commit their crimes on this side of the Atlantic.

One of the earliest maxims of morality is universality.

If you don't want someone killing your neighbors and family for money, don't inflict that crime on others.

When you say that terrorists are valid military targets and we have the "right" to hunt them down and assassinate them, I'm guessing that doesn't apply to Rummy, Cheney or Bush Jr.

I suspect you would feel otherwise had you been born in Iraq and found yourself and your family on the receiving end of American terror.

 

[Toome]

If we define terrorism the way the FBI does as "...the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives, then Gonzales, Addington, Haynes, Feith, Bybee and Yoo AND their superiors qualify as terrorists by virtue of the terror they've helped to inflict on the civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan.

You're right when you say we're Americans and not Spaniard; however, prominent Nazi's who fled the Reich and were arrested in South America did not commit their crimes on this side of the Atlantic.

One of the earliest maxims of morality is universality.

If you don't want someone killing your neighbors and family for money, don't inflict that crime on others.

When you say that terrorists are valid military targets and we have the "right" to hunt them down and assassinate them, I'm guessing that doesn't apply to Rummy, Cheney or Bush Jr.

I suspect you would feel otherwise had you been born in Iraq and found yourself and your family on the receiving end of American terror.

The FBI's definition is valid. The United States has not prosecuted these individuals because they did not violate the law. Otherwise, they would have been charged. I don't understand your point.

The Nuremberg Trials were not civilian trials. They were military tribunals. Either you want military tribunals or you do not. If you do, then the US holds the trump card yet again. The US has more nukes than anyone else on the planet and the means to deliver them to any grid square on the planet. The Spaniards cannot compete with that. That, my friend, is the basic definition of pure power in its rawest form.

I suppose it never occurred to you to question why the folks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, etc. tolerate terrorism. Why don't they clean it up in their countries? Why is the US to blame for their actions?

 

[georgephillip]

If it's true the US threatens to unilaterally incinerate millions of civilians in furtherance of political or social objectives across any grid square on the planet, that would lead an objective observer to conclude the US is a terrorist state.

And those responsible for directing state policy are terrorists.

Possibly, the folks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Syria have to tolerate terrorism in their midst because the rich in America profit from selling arms to dictators and tyrants half-a world away.

Have you considered why those who profit the most from war and occupation seldom risk their own lives or the lives of their children?

 

[Sallow]

I am pretty sure that President Obama personally has a good deal of admiration and respect for President Bush. They really seem to like each other.

well shit Sallow.....i think by now he understands the BULLSHIT that the guy had to put up with.....and when George handed him the keys to the office.....he no doubt said....."well Barack.....now your going to understand why my hair and Bills hair got so light so fast".....and laughed all the way down to his limo.....and then he lit up a bowl of some nice Alabama Cush....and did some more laughing....

There's a bit more to it then that. I think there is an understanding that once the President leaves office..that's it..they are off the hook.

The Republicans sort of didn't get that with Clinton. But the moment anyone tosses a President in jail..things will go down into the toilet very quickly.

 

[georgephillip]

Even better if two former presidents get tossed into prison, one from each major party.