is a progressive disease.  What is with the word WAR that these bleeding-hearts dont understand ?  Waterboarding to save 1000s, maybe millions of lives ?  Bet they would change their tune if one of their children was taken and had their head cut off. 

The one "detainee" was waterboarded over a 100 times.  You'd think after the first 2 times, he would think to himself: "What ? Again ? What an inconvenience"

I bet Matthews is getting all "tingly" again at the thought of prosecuting Bush and Cheney.  In fact, I bet the thought of this surpasses the tingle factor he has for Obama.

However Schultz, after Matthews' continued to push, relented and gave
the MSNBC host a response more to his liking as she warned: "There is
no one that is above the law in the United States of America."

Ummm, what about all the tax cheats on Obama's cabinet? Are they not above the law?

D

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

MSNBC and CNN did nothing but claim that the Tea Party was promoted by Fox News and now we have Chris Matthews salivating over prosecuting Bush and Cheney.

 "But how do we do it? Under what law do we go after them?"  -Matthews

Translation:  I want those guys to go to jail!!!  Let's find a way to make it happen!  There must be some law somewhere that they broke!  Let's find it!

They might say "Wow, that sucks!"  But at least they'll say "Wow!"  -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

You go ahead and try to prosecute those attorneys, guess what we will be doing??? 

http://www.politico....

Someone violated their fiduciary trust in the Bank of America - Merrill Lynch merger which then caused Bank of America to be fiancially impacted.  Not only is the CEO of BofA going to be in trouble but Bernanke as well for conspiring to defraud the stock holders of BofA by withholding of materially important information concerning the merger.   Where's the SEC??? 

All's fair in war...

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.

If this wussified candy ass cannot bring himself to support coercive interrogations that could very well save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Americans, then he isn't worth the toilet paper required to wipe his ass.

I am sick to death of these spineless, pink panty-wearing cowards like Matthews directly and indirectly giving aid and comfort to our enemies in a conflict that we did not ask for.

That used to be a crime in this country, one that could result in the execution of those who were found to be guilty of it.

Maybe it should be again.

-Dave

Matthews, in the zeal of his political resentment, is stumbling over a philosophical distinction.

• Consider this. In 1963, police arrested Ernesto Miranda for rape. He confessed, but he had no attorney at the time. His court-appointed attorney appealed the case repeatedly, arguing that the police should have informed Miranda that he had a right to stay silent. He lost every time until it got to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in his favor.
• For the moment, forget about Miranda himself. Think of the police in this case. From a certain perspective, you could argue that the Supreme Court of the United States had "proved" that the police had violated Miranda's civil rights!
  • Should the cops who arrested Miranda be charged with a crime themselves?
  • After all, the Court said they violated Miranda's rights.
  • They didn't act viciously, but the Court ruled against them. They lost!
• On the other hand, four Supreme Court justices thought the cops acted properly (enough). From this, do we discern that the four justices "didn't know the law!" At that time, there had been no explicit regulations that required the police to inform Miranda, can you prosecute them for rules that didn't exist yet?

Of course not. The law rejects ex post facto actions, except under very unique circumstances, and none apply here.

Matthews' position is ridiculous. It claims that after the fact, the loser of a legal interpretation can be prosecuted for having a different opinion before the decision was made. Mind you, we're not talking about a decision from a legal authority that was already in place. This was a debate about an interpretation that had yet to be decided.

Liberals now frame the question with: "But torture was already illegal!" That's a dodge; the question was whether these techniques were torture in the first place. Now, you can huff and say, of course they were torture! ... but mere opinion doesn't matter. If there wasn't a law or authoritative interpretation in place at the time, you have nothing to prosecute with.

Matthews is just promoting political resentment, and trying to give it a veneer of legality. It's a shame the law doesn't allow a media idiot to be slapped.

Does this moron really believe what he is saying or is he just continuing the defamation....?

I'd like to prosecute him for public indecency....er somp'n.

to the question posed in this article's title until I realized it read "prosecute, not "persecute".

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

Just have a big show hearing.  Waxman or Pelosi or Leahy can run it.  Everyone can play dress up and avoid inconvenient facts (e.g., whatever you do, don't mention the name "Dick Armitage" for 6 hours straight) while churning out a steady stream of mellow-dramatic "I'm a victim of the evil Bush administration / How can this happen in America?" type gibberish.

Should be interesting to see how this prosecution works.  They need to retroactively define what constitutes "torture", then prosecute based on that newly defined definition. And prosecute...uhhhh...who?  Bush, Cheney, lawyers, the CIA, the entire U.S. Senate, the 10s of millions of Americans who fully support the use of a few pitchers of water dumped over a mass murderers face in order to avoid a second 911? 

Sorry, Chris: Bush and Cheney are ph*cking heros for doing this.  I'm sure you'd have preferred 10,000 dead in LA.  If they'd allowed that to happen, you'd have a good argument for prosecution.  As it stands, Chris, you and your ilk are a national disgrace.

NewsBusters:  Please find a new IT group to run your site.  The response time here is often (very often) terrible.

http://www.wtopnews....

It was only a matter of time, but now Obama has just sewn the seeds for his downfall, which will be messy.

2010: A GOP Hill

For corruption and tax evasion.

they [Dems and their lapdogs] must plan on being in power a long, long time to be considering setting this kind of precedent. 

I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless   ~Dennis Miller

Linked and quoted this article on Exposing Bias and Deception at NBC

Being that Nancy Pelosi sat in on 30 CIA intelligence debriefings in 2002 and uttered nary a word in protest to "harsh interrogation methods including waterboarding"....

Wish someone would RAHM that AXELROD right up PELOSI'S OBAMA !!!!!!

If Mathews and his ilk are so set on making an issue of legal decision for being the president, then we need to have a president who is legal.  B.O.'s credentials are still MIA and the laws for being qualified are not being enforced by intent.  There is much fraud afoot here and no way to satisfy the legal aspects.

Libs are such twits, they are always looking to blame everyone else for their screw-ups.