Saturday, February 28, 2009

Chicago Torture Cases Still Not A Concern To Liberal Establishment

For decades, Chicago police tortured arrestees through beatings, burnings and electrocutions to force them into confessions. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley prosecuted these cases as a State's Attorney and ignored the problem after he became Mayor until the feds started putting heat on his police department. Nearly six years ago, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office was asked to oversee the review of cases involving former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge to consider the possibility of new trials or freeing persons who may have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit. The cases originally came to her because the former State's Attorney had represented Burge, the instigator of the torture methods used to obtain confessions. She's now trying to pass the cases back to the Cook County State's Attorney's office. Madigan says she is compelled to dump the cases because her office has insufficient funds.

Madigan has been preoccupied as of late with figuring out a way to advance to higher office. She wanted the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. She tried to bypass Illinois' constitutional procedure for impeachment of the governor by petitioning the Supreme Court to remove him based on an alleged mental disability so Pat Quinn could become governor and appoint her to the Senate. Madigan's father, the Speaker of the House for life, originally called a special session last fall to pass legislation establishing a special election to fill the seat Roland Burris now holds but changed his mind when he thought daughter Lisa might not be able to muster the votes necessary to win in a crowded field. Blagojevich, who said he would sign legislation calling for a special election, appointed Burris when the legislature failed to act. Unhappy with Blagojevich's parting gift, Madigan has now issued a legal opinion that Illinois lawmakers can move up a special election two years for Burris' seat.

What fascinates me is that Madigan is an icon to liberals because she is the Democrat Attorney General of Illinois, she's a woman and she's a huge Obama supporter. These are the same people who spent the last eight years blasting George W. Bush and his administration's alleged mistreatment of foreign enemy combatant detainees at Gitmo. Liberals like Sheila Kennedy never pass up an opportunity to refer to Bush officials as war criminals. Yet, they see absolutely no injustice in the Chicago police torture cases because the torturers are part of the corrupt, one-party Democratic rule in the Windy City that just sent their favorite messiah to the White House. The rights of radical Islamic terrorists from foreign countries who are hell-bent on destroying the U.S. and Israel are more important than our own U.S. citizens as far as these liberals are concerned. They find no fault in Madigan ignoring these cases as Illinois' top law enforcement official, and they see nothing wrong with her partisan usurping of Illinois' constitution to fill a Senate seat with a person of her own choosing--namely herself. The ends justify the means.

5 comments:

Wilson46201 said...

You never once mentioned the horrible damage Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney did to the US reputation concerning torture while it was happening but now you bring it up to make politically partisan point against Democrats?

Advance Indiana said...

If one of those foreign terrorists has information about a nuclear bomb that is about to be set off in a major American city or an explosive-laden plane that will be flown into the White House or the Capitol Building, I don't give a damn what they do to get that information out of them. Liberals don't understand the difference between fighting a war against radicals who don't accept our civil justice system and running a criminal justice system in accordance with the rule of law to protect the rights of our citizenry. I have many problems with Bush-Cheney, including the manner in which it waged the Iraqi War; their handling of terrorists is not one of them. The radical Islamic terrorists didn't stop blowing up innocent people and otherwise creating mayhem elsewhere around the world; they just weren't successful on U.S. soil after 9/11.

Wilson46201 said...

You take your legal reasoning from a popular TV show now? Pretty lousy for a so-called officer of the court! Real lawyers defer to the rule of law, not Hollywood script-writers...

Advance Indiana said...

"You take your legal reasoning from a popular TV show now? Pretty lousy for a so-called officer of the court!"

Ever watch the West Wing? The Obama campaign was scripted by the same people.

Officers of the court aren't trained on, or responsible for fighting wars. I'll leave that task to trained soldiers.

Jason said...

Wilson, you need a history lesson. There is legal precedent for every single policy initiative that Bush undertook in regard to detainees. People seem to forget the overwhelming majority from both sides who initially stated those policies were legal. Cheese'n rice man, FDR suspended Habeas Corpus for American citizens in WWII, something the Bush administration has never come close to doing. Read a history book. Daggum, the redaction program was started by Clinton anyways, and the timeline of contradictory statements he's made about it is a pretty good sign he was doing the same thing Bush did.

Kind of like the wiretapping thing. Just because you call it 'illegal wiretapping,' and try to use that as being synonymous with 'warrantless wiretapping,' doesn't make it so. Warrantless wiretaps have been used by the government under circumstances where a warrant couldn't be previously obtained for years. Will it still be illegal when Obama continues all these policies?