impeach bush for peace peach
(Go to our Main

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

March 6, 2009

GOP Senator Specter (R-PA) supports torture memo investigations

Filed under: Impeachment Progress News — Mikael @ 11:28 am

GOP senator would support probe of ‘shocking’ anti-terror memos
Rachel Oswald

Update at bottom: ‘Be careful what you wish for,’ Leahy tells Maddow some in GOP back legal action

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said he was opposed to any Truth Commission tasked with investigating Bush administration abuses, but that he could support criminal investigations into political appointees who authored the controversial OLC memos.

Speaking at Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Wednesday hearing on exploring the possibilities of setting up a nonpartisan Truth Commission, Specter, a moderate in his party who has supported past Senate inquiries into polices of the Bush administration, said:

“I would not mind looking backward if there’s reason to do so. If we have evidence of torture ““ go after it. If there’s reason to believe that these Justice Department officials have knowingly given the president cover for practices they know not to be right or sound ““ go after them. Some of the [OLC] opinions are more than startling, they’re shocking. If [OLC counsel] did that knowingly”¦it sounds to me that it may fall within criminal conduct.

Specter said he supported the Justice Department pursuing an investigation into the writing of the memos.

“They’re not going to pull any punches,” Specter said of a Justice investigation.

A key aspect still unresolved of Leahy’s proposal to set up an independent “˜Truth Commission’ with the task of examining wrongdoing by the Bush administration, is whether immunity will be offered to those who testify, and if so, what kind of immunity.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy’s hearing on the feasibility of setting up a nonpartisan “˜commission of inquiry’ into national security abuses over the last eight years met with strong support from a variety of sectors ““ civil libertarians, some corners of the military and human rights advocates.

In opening the day’s hearing before a half-full chamber room that included a dozen Guantanamo Bay protestors wearing orange prison jumpsuits, Leahy strove to create a bipartisan atmosphere.

Leahy said the commission could be imbued with subpoena powers and even the power to grant immunity to those who agree to testify. But he also warned that the commission would not rule out criminal prosecutions for witnesses who perjure themselves.

“This is a time when conservatives, liberals, Republicans and Democrats should be setting aside labels to come together foremost as Americans,” Leahy said. “We shouldn’t be afraid to look at what we’ve done and hold ourselves accountable as we do other nations when they make mistakes. Today is another opportunity to come forward and find the facts and join all of us, Republicans and Democrats, to develop a process to understand what went wrong and then to learn from it.”

But there is also significant opposition from Leahy’s Republican colleagues on the committee who contested that Congress had no business delegating responsibility to investigate Bush abuses and that no matter how “˜nonpartisan’ in name the commission was, it would still become a vehicle for Democrats to launch criminal probes into Republicans.

“The idea of creating an independent, and I’m not sure how independent it would actually be, unaccountable Truth Commission, is a bad idea with all due respect,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), a member of the Judiciary Committee. “The suggestion that this can be delved into somehow in a nonpartisan fashion asks us to suspend our powers of disbelief.”

Two of Leahy’s fellow Democrats on the Judiciary Committee gave support to the Truth Commission, though from their comments, they seem to be more interested in criminal prosecutions for high-profile Bush appointees than Leahy.

“There can be no doubt that we must fully understand the mistakes of the past to address them and to prevent them occurring in the future,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). “Your proposal is aimed at finding the truth, not settling the score. I think a truth commission as the chairman has proposed is the best way to get the story out to the American people.”

Feingold said immunity for low-level participants of the Bush administration needed to be explored but added any Truth Commission should tread carefully in granting immunity as “there may be some cases that should be prosecuted.”

He also said that Congress should only task the commission with fact-finding and not with making any recommendations. The commission should be comprised of investigative professionals rather than partisan policymakers Feingold said.

“It is distinctly in the public interest for this information to come out,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), adding that some conduct of Bush appointees may have been so “abhorrent” as to merit criminal investigations.

Cornyn said that any investigation into the interrogation methods of the CIA, would likely result in a more timid, agency, fearful of retroactive discipline, that would become reluctant to vigorously pursue intelligence gathering.

Frederick Schwartz, chief legal counsel of the Brennan Center for Justice and a witness in support of the Truth Commission, said he didn’t personally believe that CIA operatives, who engaged in questionable interrogation practices such as water boarding, should be criminally prosecuted or brought before the Truth Commission.

“I think they acted in good faith because they had legal opinions [backing them up], said Schwartz, referencing the recently made public Office of Legal Counsel memos that authorized radical and questionable executive powers.

Thomas Pickering, a former U.S. ambassador, testified in support of the commission, noting how it would improve American standing abroad with foreign allies and also take away propaganda power from terrorists who have used the treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib as a recruitment tool.

“We must as a country take stock of where we have been and determine what is and what is not acceptable and what we will never do again,” Pickering said. “We ought to acknowledge the mistakes that were made.”

Pickering added that the commission should not have the power to grant blanket immunity or full immunity.

Speaking against the idea of the commission, Jeremy Rabkin, a law professor at George Mason University, objected to the statements made by some far-left sectors of society that compare President Bush and his cabinet to “notorious war criminals of foreign countries.”

Rather than improving American standing abroad, Rabkin said a Truth Commission would actually legitimize these views in other countries. Countries that have held Truth Commissions in the past, such as South Africa and Chile, had to go that route because their countries were to divided and peace to fragile to handle any kind of criminal prosecution.

“Oh yes, that is what is done with war criminals when you can’t prosecute them,” Rabkin said. “I think this will be said as ratifying the background view. If people think there should be prosecutions, there can be prosecutions.”

Leahy warned that if Republicans chose to not take part in his “nonpartisan fact-finding commission,” then calls from more strident members of his party for criminal prosecutions of Bush administration appointees would only become louder and they would become more empowered in the eyes of the public, which according to a recent Gallup poll, two thirds of Americans support some type of inquiry into Bush administration abuses.

“If criminal conduct occurred, this senator wants to know about it,” Leahy said. “I’m trying to get the ability to find out if criminal conduct occurred so it won’t happen again. If crimes occurred, I don’t think they should be swept under the rug.”

The full formal testimony of Wednesday’s witnesses can be read here.

Leahy tells Maddow some Republicans back legal action

During an appearance on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, Leahy said that some Republicans might back legal action against members of the Bush White House.

Leahy told Maddow that the recently released Bush anti-terror documents “makes me think of some of the ads I”˜ve seen for the Frost/Nixon tapes where the actor playing President Nixon says, ‘It”˜s not against the law when the president does it.’ Well, nobody”˜s above the law in this country.'”

Politico’s Andy Barr writes, “Rather than prosecuting Bush officials, the Democrat has proposed the creation of a ‘truth commission’ to investigate alleged wrongdoings in the waging of the war on terror. Leahy’s proposed commission would have subpoena power, but would not press criminal charges against former White House officials.”

“Now, interestingly enough, some of the Republicans, in their arguments this morning, were saying, maybe prosecution is the only way you”˜re going to really find out,” Leahy said. “Something has been done wrong and you should have prosecution. My feeling is, be careful what you wish for. That may be what you get.”

Maddow responded, “We do have a very interesting sort of convergence of right and left on the relationship of your commission idea to prosecutions. We got Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold and Sheldon Whitehouse and Michael Ratner from the Center for Constitutional Rights, all arguing they wouldn”˜t want any offers of immunity from the commission to preclude prosecutions.”

“But today, as you said, Republicans arguing against the commission, Arlen Specter, David Rivkin, former Justice Department official, both suggesting that the commission might interfere with the Justice Department”˜s turf in prosecuting,” Maddow continued. “Are they…”

Leahy interjected, “That”˜s why I say ‘be careful what you wish for’ because we already have a prosecutor looking into this. If prosecution can find all the answers, that”˜s fine. But I”˜m just worried that it might not. That”˜s why I”˜m trying to find this middle ground.”

But Leahy warned Republicans, “If we cannot get the kind of bipartisan support needed for a commission to get all the facts out, then it”˜s going to fall back on prosecution. But I am not willing to just ignore what happened. Some have said turn the page. I say, well, let”˜s read the page first before you turn it.”



  1. Specter may be the only fare and balanced republican in Pa., the question is is he the only real American republican in the party? That would be my guess. Lets not keep Lebanworth waiting.

    Comment by Joseph Meyers — March 7, 2009 @ 9:18 pm

  2. Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) come on, do Bush and prosecute his corrupt butt

    Comment by Den — March 9, 2009 @ 10:07 am

  3. Prosecutions won’t lead us anywhere. We need exact and well developed actions that both people and the government could appreciate. Working towards such a goal should be done little by little and patiently. There is no need in accusing the leaders without certain facts and proof.

    Comment by Johnny The New York Detective — May 1, 2009 @ 3:02 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
protest picture

Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, considering Bush's track-record of breaking laws, he can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

• Impeachment will never happen. Congress members will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

(Read More)