Re: Obama & Syria: You know what would really impress me (and probably change the world)

[librechik]

Obama should say there has been a great neglect surrounding prosecuting war criminals like Assad. But we cannot proceed with prosecuting Assad and his ilk when we are hypocrites with every word, as we ourselves may have committed war crimes.

The US will show the first example of how we must proceed by moving to prosecute Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and Bush Jr for crimes committed before and during the Iraq invasion. Then he sets up the citizen's legal commission to work on it. He also pledges to sign the ICC treaty to show we are serious.

If he is very brave he might also say that future administrations may have to decide if Barrack himself is guilty of war crimes, and will have to prove it with evidence. He is ready for that, and to defend his own actions. In fact, it should be an ongoing united effort to keep Presidents and the military honest.

He will urge other chiefs of state to do the same, because it won't work unless everybody agrees.

That'll never happen, right?

[geek tragedy]

1. Current Presidents prosecuting the most recent president is a recipe

for the meltdown of our electoral system.

You know what happens when heads of state determine that they'll go to prison when they leave office?

They decide to never leave office.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Balderdash ...

with a pinch of chickenshit.

[librechik]

4. or they could decide not to be criminals because there are real penalties. n/t

[geek tragedy]

7. Because the next President of course wouldn't use trumped up charges

and bring a prosecution before a judge he appointed to the bench, right?

Next thing you know, they'll be impeaching Presidents over fellatio.

[librechik]

10. as you point out, lack of punitive response to REAL crimes led to kangaroo courts etc.

If there is an actual structure, there might be less abuse. It beats just standing there and whining.

[geek tragedy]

12. Problem is that Presidents are political animals, and

any prosecution of a preceding president would be a political decision.

Imagine it's 2008, and Bush/Cheney become convinced that they'd spend the rest of their lives in bars if Obama wins and takes office.

What happens?

[librechik]

13. I'm not talking about 08. We know what happened there (?)

Besides, given the system, they knew they were safe from that. We have to change the system.

At any rate in 09 Obama was convinced not to prosecute for unknown reasons. But he's free to do powerplays now, since he can't lose another election. And it would be nice to see a powerplay for once that wasn't completely violent and stupid.

[Pholus]

14. There you have it: at least one DU'er thinks the "rule of law" is dead then.

Seriously, why bother with "The Great Experiment" given that elegantly spineless appraisal of our system just rendered above: The new meme is that some corporations are now "Too big to fail" and some politicians are "too powerful to prosecute."

Just add "Laws" to "Taxes" in Leona Helmsley's most famous quote and we have the new order neatly summed up.

[geek tragedy]

15. Should FDR/Truman have been put in prison for putting innocent

Japanese Americans in concentration camps? For the syphillis experiments on Guatemalans? For nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and firebombing Tokyo and Dresden?

How about what Kennedy did with the Bay of Pigs? LBJ and Vietnam? Nixon for Chile? Eisenhower and Iran plus all of Central America?

Read some history.

[librechik]

18. yes on interning Japanese, syphilis,and firebombs. Prosecute German/Japanese atrocities TOO

Juries still out on Hiroshima. I lean yes, surrender to prosecution as soon as you trigger one of those things. SAME FOR DEPLETED URANIUM. No on Bay of Pigs. Yes, prosecute LBJ for lies and fraud costing many lives. Of course, prosecute Nixon. Eisenhower could probably plead CIA malfeasance (Like JFK on Bay of Pigs)

Nixon/Bush/Reagan and their various treacheries? Prosecute those fuckers.

If prosecution for war crimes was CERTAIN there might be far fewer.

Read some history? I will as soon as somebody actually writes some.

Right now I'm discovering Peter Dale Scott and boy has my perspective on history changed. Oh, and BTW, I have an advanced degree in history, so save your contempt for others.

edit to add h, cue the scoffing and contempt for Scott, I suppose.

[geek tragedy]

19. So, this rule of law never did exist, did it? nt

[librechik]

21. no it has never existed. Not saying it ever did. Just wondering

why we don't make it real in what's left of our future. We got close with the Nuremberg trials. We could get there again.

[geek tragedy]

22. Nations don't put their own elected leaders on trial, as a general rule. nt

[librechik]

23. that's why the ICC. US crimes should be subject to that. n/t

[geek tragedy]

24. War crimes tribunals are victors' justice.

One will never see Putin, or the head of China's petroleum companies, or Cheney on trial there.

It's for out of power third tier despots who lost their civil wars.

[Comrade Grumpy]

25. You might want to talk to Mr. Morsi about that.

[geek tragedy]

26. Hmm, are you trying to make my point for me? nt

[Pholus]

27. I expect the world to be a better place 60 years later.

You? You want to use 60 year old crimes as an excuse for why we keep committing them today.

Yet another tired refrain of that same old, whining spineless "we're so helpless" bullshit.

It's far more likely that I will read (yet another) history book than it will be for you to fix your particular problem.

[dkf]

3. Exactly. If we were concerned about international norms we would sign the ICC.

Frankly we need this to keep our leaders in check.

[polichick]

20. True.

[sharp_stick]

5. I'd like to know how he could do that

without Congressional support.

[librechik]

11. I dunno--everything I described (except the ICC, perhaps) can be done with executive orders.

screw those do nothing NON representatives. Maybe it will get them off their asses to try to stop him.

[sufrommich]

6. Yes,we should call the U.S. a hypocritical war criminal state,then we should

call for the jailing of the last administration using citizen show trials,then Obama should admit that he himself might be a war criminal,then we should prepare for conservative republican government for the next 50 years,because that would be the result of said actions.

[librechik]

9. Really? I Think there might be such a huge surge of the electorate in FAVOR of this solution

to REPUBLICAN CRIMES that they might even repeal the 22nd amendment and elect Obama to a third term. There will be lots of cleanup work to do. And it might destroy the Rape and Warlican Party forever.

[dionysus]

16. you really think the majority of US citizens want to see bush and cheney, condi, ect, locked up for

life, or worse?

and that doing so will cause the house and senate to scrap the 22nd amendment so Obama can run again?

with all due respect, what planet are you on?

[librechik]

17. with all due respect, I live on the planet where justice is served and citizens can trust

their government. Don't worry, I know it's not THIS planet. It could be, that's all.

[pampango]

8. If we just joined the ICC that would go a long way to achieving this, but that is not about

to happen, unfortunately.

National sovereignty, don't you know. (Just ask the republican base.) Can't have a bunch of foreigners arresting and judging good ol' Americans.