A Truth Commission with the ability to immunize is the only way we'll get the truth.

[rateyes]

American citizens still have 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination. Without immunity, you can call every Bush administration official to testify, and they will assert those rights. The truth, then, about the Bush Administration crimes will die with those witnesses.

However, if you can immunize witnesses, and therefore remove the possibility of prosecution of the "smaller fish," you can catch the "big fish"---the REAL criminals.

Therefore, unlike Speaker Pelosi, I'm in favor of a Truth Commission, just so long as immunity is given only to the aides, and not the principals (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzo, Mukasey, etc.).

(BTW, is this why Pelosi is against a "Truth Commission?" Does she want to keep 5th amendment rights in tact for the "small fish," to keep their mouths shut??)

[Lyric]

1. A "Truth Commission"?

Are we going to be looking for unAmerican activities? Will we have lists?

God, this place is scary sometimes.

[rateyes]

3. Right. That's exactly what I'm talking about. I want a witch hunt.

:sarcasm:

[KittyWampus]

8. this is about having people involved in illegal activity testify

[KittyWampus]

2. that's what I've said for the last 8 years. And if you get enough underlings to spill their guts

you can actually get some of the higher hanging fruit.

Fact is, some of the underlings probably would WANT to cooperate.

[rateyes]

6. I think so, too. Confession is good for the soul. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. Efectiveness of truth commissin depends on WHO gets immunity.

[rateyes]

5. No argument there. nt

[ThomWV]

7. I don't mind immunity for Sargents or GS-9s and below

[rateyes]

9. Same here.

[kentuck]

10. They would only have to give immunity to 2 or 3 people...

Others involved in illegal activities would be subject to the rule of law.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. the fifth only protects people from incriminating themselves.

It could keep people quiet about what they were told to do, but not about what they witnessed, saw, read, overheard, etc. And if enough outside evidence is amassed against those who rely on taking the fifth, then their taking the fifth doesn't matter. They will be convicted on OTHER people's evidence.

We are talking about giving immunity to people who have committed war crimes and crimes against the people of the United States in undermining the very foundations of our republic.

And what makes you think that these congenital liars will tell the truth to a "truth commission"?

Truth commission: We ask you to tell us the terrible things you did, and immunize you against all prosecution, leaving you free to say anything you want with no repercussions.

Now THAT'S gonna get results.

[rateyes]

13. A person has the right to assert the 5th amendment on the grounds that

the answer MIGHT incriminate them. If they are immunized, they can't be incriminated, and therefore the 5th does not apply. Immunity only applies if the one immunized TELLS THE TRUTH. If a person with immunity lies, there is no immunity. It does not leave them "free to say anything they want with no repercussions."

Lying to Congress after being immunized will land a person in jail for a helluva long time. THAT'S why it will get results.

[truebrit71]

12. But we won't necessarily get justice...

..Bush and his fellow criminals didn't do the actual torturing...they left that to low level sadistic bastards...whom do you want? The torturers, or the folks that told them to torture...personally I want them ALL to be held accountable...let the chips fall where they may...

[rateyes]

14. Good luck with getting them ALL when they all can assert their 5th amendment privileges.

If you don't immunize the "low level sadistic bastards," you won't get the war criminals that ordered the torture. The chips would fall on the little people...the big people walk away scot-free. You call that justice??