Sandra Day O'Connor Should Lead Torture Investigation

[babylonsister]

Sounds good to me!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/sandra-day-oconnor-should_b_191841.html

Cenk Uygur
Host of The Young Turks
Posted April 27, 2009 | 03:02 PM (EST)

Sandra Day O'Connor Should Lead Torture Investigation


Is there anyone in the country more reliably moderate than retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor? She is a lifelong Republican who was the critical vote that put George Bush into office in 2000. For which liberals will probably never forgive her.

She's also the person who said about Republican attacks against an independent judiciary, "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings." She was also the deciding vote against overturning Roe v. Wade. For which conservatives will never forgive her.

Both sides might have a bone to pick with her, but there is no question that she has maintained a stubborn impartiality throughout her long career. This is why I think she might be just the right person to head an impartial investigation of the possible torture committed under the Bush administration.

I personally don't favor a truth commission, simply because we already know most of what happened, the real question is what are we going to do about it? But if there is a nonpartisan Truth Commission, O'Connor should probably lead it.

I would go even further and ask her to be the special independent prosecutor in a criminal investigation of torture by the Justice Department. Now that we largely know what was authorized under Bush and how it worked its way down the chain of command and what the results were, what we really need is someone to determine if specific laws were broken.

O'Connor might not have a lot of experience in hands-on prosecution of cases, so admittedly independent prosecutor would seem to be a strange role for her, but I'm not proposing she get in the courtroom and try these cases herself. I think the proper role for her is to figure out if anyone has actually committed a crime here and determine if prosecution is necessary in the first place. And then if that determination is made, there are plenty of capable prosecutors in the country.

My hunch is that O'Connor, given her cautious nature, would be very reluctant to call anything a crime by the president or his deputies. But if she got overwhelming evidence that in fact a crime was committed, she would have the courage not to ignore that evidence. If the evidence in this case eventually passes the O'Connor barrier, then the American people can be confident that this issue was not politicized but given the judicial scrutiny it deserved

[Demeter]

1. I Cannot Think of Anyone LESS Suited

She bears guilt for putting these assholes in office. Pick someone who never did the Bush Family Evil Empire a favor, or compromised herself to curry their favor.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. 'reliably moderate??????'

JFC

is this from the Onion?

here's my first thought upon reading this offal:

[dem629]

12. It's coming from Cenk. What do you expect?

[Bluebear]

2. No way in hell. I blame her for crowning Bush in 2000 & installing those criminals

[babylonsister]

3. But think about it. She'd be 'erring' on the side of fairness this go round.

OK, so who else with a high profile would qualify?

Jonathan Turley?! Mmm, maybe not. He wouldn't even get past the approval phase if there is one.

[Bluebear]

7. I don't trust her as far as I can throw her. Her legacy is Bush, Iraq, Katrina..

Helen Thomas, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote that "he story going around is that a very upset Justice Sandra Day O'Connor walked out of a dinner party on election night when she heard the first mistaken broadcast that Vice President A Gore had won.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200304/ai_n9221306/

[dem629]

9. Why do they have to be high-profile?

We have decent, accomplished District Attorneys working in cities across this country, ones who aren't out for fame or fortune.

Let's get people from outside Washington this time. And no professors. Let's get hard-core prosecutors who know something about actual real-life investigations. Put them on a panel and let 'em go.

[robinlynne]

10. me too. I will never forget it.

[hedgehog]

5. Why not wait and let the Justice Department do its job?

[babylonsister]

11. Do you think anyone is listening to me, or Cenk?

:spray: Me, neither!

[elleng]

6. See what happens, b'sister!

NO ONE satisfies EVERYONE!!!

I do like her, a lot, and her decision-making technique is very precise.

:fistbump:

[robinlynne]

8. hell NO! Sandra Day oConnor is the reason we had these 8 miserable years!

[BlooInBloo]

13. A *judge* taking a *prosecutorial* role?

[walldude]

14. While I usually agree with your posts I have to stand against

this one. I don't think the Supreme Court should be involved at all. Hell I don't think Americans should judging this. I think this should go to a world court or the UN or some other body who has no stake in the outcome of the investigations. Maybe the Swiss. A nice neutral country.

[dem629]

15. And the message we'd send to the world is:

"We don't have the balls to investigate our own leaders for potentially breaking our own laws."

[Demeter]

17. True!

Certainly Nancy Pelosi blew that opportunity off. Nor did she resign to let someone competent run the House.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

18. And the message, unfortunately, is likely accurate.

[dem629]

19. Then what's the point?

[walldude]

22. No the message would be "We want to make sure justice is done

and there isn't an American anywhere who isn't taking a side here so impartiality isn't an option for us.



Sorry but your "We don't have the balls" thing is how we got in this mess in the first place. We showed our balls alright and damn near doomed the whole fucking world with our arrogance.

[dem629]

23. "There isn't an American anywhere who isn't taking a side..."

You know that for sure?

You're saying that among the tens of thousands of dedicated, professional District Attorneys across this country who work hard for very little money, there aren't any who are professional enough to do the job right?

It's quite an assumption to say there are no Americans capable of handling this investigation impartially.

[Demeter]

16. The Swiss Aren't as Neutral As They'd Like You To Believe

They consorted with the banksters, and lost their bank secrecy privileges as a result.

Better to pick someone who owes nothing in either direction to BushCo.

[walldude]

21. Cool, didn't know that.. How about the Dutch?

I just want anyone, who is willing to be fair and impartial, and no American is going to be able to do that.

[Demeter]

25. That Might Be a Good Choice

The Dutch nationalized Fortis in September, saying the Belgians had put the holding company in danger. And they subsidized ING Bank. The Dutch have been competently handling business. And they seem rather independent of the US. Bush never fawned over them.

[babylonsister]

20. She's retired. But I do like the idea of a world court. nt

[walldude]

24. She is? Damn, where the hell have I been?

I just worry that if we handle this ourselves we can't be impartial. I know if it were me I'd be hard pressed not to want to lock up every single one of them from the very top to the lawyers, the guys who tortured, to the contractors. No breaks for anyone.