DOJ Torture Investigation Can Implicate Obama and Clinton Admin-UPDATED


As approval ratings for President Obama and the Democrats’ Congress continue to fall-with both independents and the Democratic Party base leaving the support column, the Obama Admin has turned to its old tactic of distraction by torture. That is to say, they’ve leaked to the press some new sort of report about allegations of torture conducted during the early years of the Bush Administration.

In the past, President Obama chose not to allow pictures of “torture” to be published because his military commanders said it would endanger the lives of troops in the field by emboldening the enemy. However, his approval rating was still suffering, so he released detailed descriptions of the “torture” methods, of interrogation techniques that the enemy could train against, and he went back and forth on whether or not there would be a criminal investigation of the former Administration.

A few weeks later, when the distraction had faded and poll numbers were sagging again, the Obama Admin tried to suggest that “torture” had been going on without the informed consent of Congress. The problem there was that Congress HAD been informed, and CIA Director Leon Panetta was compelled to release documents showing that Congress had been informed. This put the Speaker of the House in an awkward position, and she handled it poorly.

She tried the torture-distraction-tactic as well by claiming that there were other CIA programs that were illegal, that she had no knowledge of, and that were criminal. Again, CIA Director Panetta was forced to reveal that no, the programs she referred to were not illegal. He tried to claim that it was just a miscommunication and misunderstanding on the Speaker’s part, but she had lost face, argued she understood perfectly, and Panetta had to fall on his sword by claiming he’d screwed up and falsely reported the existence of these illegal programs.

Well, it’s that time of year again. The President and the Democrats’ Congress have sagging approval ratings, SO!!!!!!! Let’s talk torture! Obama’s Department of Justice has re-reviewed some of the already investigated allegations of torture, and decided to re-open some of the cases that had been closed. Will the torture-distraction-tactic work again? Probably not.

There are multiple problems with investigating closed cases from a previous Administration, but the core problem is that there is no statute of limitations on how far back such allegations can be re-opened and re-investigated. Using the exact same argument that’s being used to re-open these allegations of “torture,” the DOJ may be required to pursue standing orders, techniques, and policies that pre-date the Bush Administration. Moreover, if they are re-opening past allegations of “torture”, then when the same or similar tactics and techniques are used today by the Obama Administration, then the DOJ is even more compelled than usual to investigate the Obama Administration OR face a Special Prosecutor. The latter is not likely if Democrats hold control of Congress, but that’s not likely either. If Republicans take even one House of Congress in 14 months, then they very well could have a case for impeachment on their hands-impeachment of President Obama on charges that he authorized the same or similar “torture” and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other countries FOR torture as did his predecessors Bush and Clinton.

More specifically, if the Obama DOJ investigates the Bush Admin for conducting extraordinary renditions (sending prisoners to other countries so the other country can torture them on our behalf), then the Obama Admin will have to explain why IT TOO is even now conducting extraordinary renditions. It will have to explain why the CIA Director, Leon Panetta, claims to have personally arranged renditions himself when he was President Clinton’s Chief of Staff. President Clinton’s Counterterrorism Czar, Richard Clarke, will have to testify to the extraordinary renditions he admits he personally authorized.

Many on the left will find vigor and woohoo in the idea of possibly prosecuting anyone who had anything to do with the Bush Administration. This is ALWAYS an effective way for Team Obama and the Democrats’ Congresss to refire their base.
Good luck with that this time though. While falling poll numbers are partially the result of an increasingly apathetic and frustrated base, the real problem is the independent-minded swing voter who was promised good things in 2006, and again in 2008, and has yet to see any of the big promises fulfilled.

Besides, Bush and Cheney are surely protected, and just going after them or anyone in their administration open’s a Pandora’s Box of problems for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not like some Republican Congressman from Podunk, USA isn’t going to go on TV and immediately ask pundits, “Why just go after people who did this in the Bush Administration? Why not go after those in the Clinton and Obama Administrations who are doing it even today?”

This problem is made worse by the very real possibility that Republicans will take one or both Houses of Congress next year, and they will steer the investigations towards THEIR political ends rather than towards Obama’s.

Democrats’ face:
Losing Congress for the same reasons they took Congress in 2006
If they lose Congress, Obama becomes a lame duck and goodbye CHANGE

Say it with me,

President Biden, please raise your right and and repeat after me.
Do you solemnly swear…..

Recall earlier that I said the DOJ would have to appoint a special prosecutor. They’re doing it. Now, if Repubs re-take at least one House of Congress, and this Special Prosecutor hasn’t made a case there can be almost NO DOUBT that Republicans will demand/force the investigation to re-examine Clinton and Obama records on rendition and torture (read the link, and see that some Repubs are already pointing the fingers at Dems as well).

This is a political doomsday bomb in the making if not quelled soon. Obama has GOT to stop letting Rahm Emanuel play politics w national security. It only re-ignites the DNC base for a few days, and each time this little game has been played by the Obama Admin, the Dems have been seriously wounded by the consequences.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great job, Scott!

I don’t always comment about all the articles I read on here, but this one deserved a hot-diggity-dang for sure. You really nailed the political ethos and pernicious patterns of these people and you managed to do it in an expressive, evocative and entertaining manner.

You’re doing great work. Keep it up.


The question now is will the Republican Heirarchy actually grow a back bone and use these options when they present themselves. I would have to see it to believe it. They didn’t push too hard to impeach Clinton so I don’t see them actually going against PEBO.

Yep, first up, Clinton renditions.

Can’t wait until we get the Joker and his crime family on trial. The things we can learn … If that’s the game, then let’s get it on.

Do we KNOW Bush & Cheney are protected? Considering the insanity of this administration, is that a safe assumption?

Further, considering the wimpiness of many incumbent Republicans, can we trust that they actually would go after Democrats if this goes down? I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t decide to be “the bigger men” in this scenario, which would of course be disastrous for our people and the outlook of the Republican party. Considering how twisted and corrupt the Holder DOJ is, I fully expect evidence linking Democrats to “torture” to mysteriously disappear.

This CIA witch hunt is a gigantic red herring to distract from Obama’s plummeting poll numbers. Why not investigate Holder for his malfeasance in recommending pardoning Marc Rich to BJ for a pardon? Isn’t White House supervision of a special “interrogations unit” that will play pattycake with suspects rather than subject them to the same conditions they put upon innocent people even more ridiculous than ? We know where this entire bogus snipe hunt—both the specious “investigation” and the new “interrogation units” will go, with “revelations” coming out in dribs and drabs to distract the public from this POTUS’s socialist agenda. Obama wants to change the public discourse with factitious detours away from his ObamaCare as it heads down the toilet into the sewage tank where it belongs. He’s “flooding the zone” with distractions to keep whack-jobs on the left from pillorying him in the press.

And “Green Czar” Van Jones is a self-proclaimed Maoist subversive traitor whose Color of Change is a version of ACORN or SEIU, dedicated to looting the public treasury following the rules of Chicago “Early and Often” political rules.

“More specifically, if the Obama DOJ investigates the Bush Admin for conducting extraordinary renditions (sending prisoners to other countries so the other country can torture them on our behalf), then the Obama Admin will have to explain why IT TOO is even now conducting extraordinary renditions.”

I found it interesting that only the NY Times is reporting about the Obama administration rendition tactics now.

@JeffinSac: In the NY Times article you linked, obammi says he will continue with rendition, but there wont be any torture. Why send them to other countries if there wont be any torture? Something smells ‘fishy’ about this. Dont get me wrong, I support any means to extract information from these animals, who want nothing more than to kill as many Americans as they can. obammi is a hypocrite, everything he says is either a lie or contradiction.

Here is the legal definition of torture in the US:

(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering

From the report:

The report also tells how a C.I.A. interrogator threatened Mr. Nashiri, by saying that if he didn’t cooperate with his captors, “we could get your mother in here” and “we can bring your family in here.”

According to the report, the interrogator wanted Mr. Nashiri to infer for “psychological” reasons that his female relatives might be sexually abused.

In a separate incident, one C.I.A. interrogator reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief organizer of the Sept. 11 attacks, was told that if there was another attack on American soil that C.I.A. would “kill your children.”

I see you’re responding to this purely through a political prism, but is there any question that this should be investigated?

Yeah. Let the investigations proceed and the chips fall where they may. In the course of destroying this country, George W. Bush (the First Fool as I loved to call him) undid DECADES of diplomatic protocol.

Were these morons able to get information via torture? Sure they did. Most of that info was false. You see, under those circumstances, the person being tortured will say just about anything. It is quite interesting: no one in this administration (Excuse me, I meant to say, “THAT administration) was smart enough to figure this out.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

@Tom Degan: I am glad you arent in charge of extracting information from these ‘terrorists’. What would you have done to get them to talk, sent them to bed without any dinner. Or maybe a ‘time-out’ in the corner. These interrogations werent done to law abiding American citizens. The interrogations were done to known planners and accomplices of terrorist acts against the US. Maybe you didnt mind when 3000 Americans died on 9-11, or you dont care if it happens again, but I say do whatever is necessary to prevent another attack. Even if the CIA, FBI, ect. has to rough-up some enemies in the process.

@trizzlor: The question is, would you rather see khalid sheikh mohammad threatened or American citizens killed? There has not been a mass-casualty attack on the US since 9-11, and it isnt because the muslims have given up.

@Robert Kelly: No, the question is weather this is was illegal behavior and needs to be investigated – and there’s no question about it. If you have compelling evidence to strike those clauses from the legal definition of torture then you can do so through due process, not by ignoring the law and then justifying it ex post facto based on hypothetical lives saved. Rather, your argument seems to be that “roughing up a few enemies” feels good and right, so it’s legally permissible. There wasn’t a single mass-casualty attack on the US under Clinton (or one if you count domestic terrorism) … that doesn’t make a legal point.

@trizzlor: Go on ahead and investigate, but you still didnt answer my question. I think I know the answer. I never said that “roughing up a few enemies” feels good or right, but if it prevents future attacks, it is necessary for our protection. I will always put the safety of US citizens above your perceived ‘rights’ of terrorists. As Scott pointed out in #10, ‘the interrogations did provide actionable intelligence and saved AMERICAN lives’.

@ trizzlor
I DON’T CARE! The fact of the matter triz, is there are not guidelines for dealing with terrorists, period. They aren’t enemy combatants. The Geneva Convention was put in place to keep countries from treating prisoners of war harshly for the actions of the nation state. If you want to call it torture, call it torture. Call it whatever you want. Until the nations put together a guideline for dealing with terrorists that WE sign off on, I DON’T CARE!
What would you do if you found out you family was killed in a second terrorist attack that could have been stopped by simply telling KSM we were going to kill him and his family? I’d be pissed.

It’s not an investigation into criminal conduct that needs to take place, it’s a united front against the a$$ clowns that want to destroy us that needs to take place. We should get together and say these people do not fall under any conventions that currently exist and we will therefore put a new convention in place that says once they are captured, we’ll use any means necessary to eradicate them from the planet.

Members of other nation’s uniformed military fall under the Geneva Convention. Nothing there has changed. KSM and OBL do not fall under that category or any other category that you can cite.

caught in the spam filter.

@Robert Kelly: Your question had nothing to do with this debate – I’d rather see whatever is most effective at protecting American citizens, weather that means giving KSM a steak dinner of putting a bullet in his head. For this reason we have due process, where legal & military professionals determine what is effective and constitutional. If you (and I’m speaking broadly here) have compelling evidence that the legal code should be changed, that such torture yields more positive intelligence than false leads, then let’s reform the code so we can start using this internally on suspected serial killers and domestic terrorists and whomever else is deemed to be a threat to American lives. Until then, the DOJ follows the laws on the books rather than your gut feelings.

@Aqua: The US Code of Justice section I linked to defines torture based on the act itself not on the victim; the torture distinction still holds if it’s a citizen, an immigrant, or an enemy non-combatant. I know you’re eager to post some talking points INRE Geneva, but less bolding and more reading would do you some good.


Here’s where your argument falls apart:

(3) “United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

The law you quoted doesn’t apply overseas.

@ trizzlor
I’m not trying to make this about the Geneva Convention. I’m saying no treaties or conventions cover what we are now dealing with.
I also see you haven’t answered Robert Kelly’s question:

The question is, would you rather see khalid sheikh mohammad threatened or American citizens killed?

or my question:

What would you do if you found out you family was killed in a second terrorist attack that could have been stopped by simply telling KSM we were going to kill him and his family?

As for your snark:

trizzlor: I know you’re eager to post some talking points INRE Geneva, but less bolding and more reading would do you some good.

Guess Aye proved you’re the one with the talking points and needs to spend a little more time reading.

*Thanks Aye!*

Trapped in spam, in the mean-time the two of you can re-read the law.