From the Field Negro’s Blog:



Those of us capable of logical thought, that is.  If you’re like me, after suffering eight years of the Bush Cartel, you have been literally praying that someone in the Cartel will see court, catch multiple cases for treason and do some time in DA JOYNT.  According to Newsweek, looks like former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld and former AG John Ashcroft might have to answer to a day in court if they don’t get a Presidential Pardon first (H/T Crooks and Liars):

In early December, in a highly unusual move, a federal court in New York agreed to rehear a lawsuit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft brought by a Canadian citizen, Maher Arar. (Arar was a victim of the administration’s extraordinary rendition program: he was seized by U.S. officials in 2002 while in transit through Kennedy Airport and deported to Syria, where he was tortured.) Then, on Dec. 15, the Supreme Court revived a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld by four Guantánamo detainees alleging abuse there—a reminder that the court, unlike the White House, will extend Constitutional protections to foreigners at Gitmo. Finally, in the same week the Senate Armed Service Committee, led by Carl Levin and John McCain, released a blistering report specifically blaming key administration figures for prisoner mistreatment and interrogation techniques that broke the law. The bipartisan report reads like a brief for the prosecution—calling, for example, Rumsfeld’s behavior a “direct cause” of abuse. Analysts say it gives a green light to prosecutors, and supplies them with political cover and factual ammunition. Administration officials, with a few exceptions, deny wrongdoing. Vice President Dick Cheney says there was nothing improper with U.S. interrogation techniques—”we don’t do torture,” he repeated in an ABC interview on Dec. 15. The government blamed the worst abuses, such as those at Abu Ghraib, on a few bad apples.

Wow, just because Darth Cheney said the Administration “doesn’t do torture” doesn’t make IT SO.  Plus, I’m wondering how Scalia and his boys got Unca Clarence to agree to hear the case against Rumfeld from the Abu Ghraib detainees? Guess the Supremes are begining to worry about their own LEGACY (which got tarnished when they decided to become partisan and intervene in a National Election that should have been determined by Congress).

And if you’re like me, you’re probably thinking Bush will pardon these jackasses anyway, so what’s the point?

Well, here’s the reason why Bush might not be as willing to grant such pardons if he’s worried about the shytpile he’s calling his LEGACY:

Constitutionally, Bush could pardon everyone involved in formulating and executing the administration’s interrogation techniques without providing specifics or naming names. And the pardon could apply to himself. Such a step, however, would seem like an admission of guilt and thus be politically awkward.

Since when has Bush been concerned about being “politically awkward”? His whole Administration has been “politically awkward” since 2001. The proof will be in the pudding, but just the thought that someone in Bush’s Administration might have to sweat like a pig if they are charged and put on trial, is making my eggnog go down that much smoother.

Related Posts with Thumbnails