HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do you think George W. Bu...

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:22 PM

 

Do you think George W. Bush should be prosecuted by the Obama administration for torture?


65 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
57 (88%)
No
8 (12%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

139 replies, 6653 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 139 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do you think George W. Bush should be prosecuted by the Obama administration for torture? (Original post)
Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 OP
hrmjustin Apr 2014 #1
quinnox Apr 2014 #2
calimary Apr 2014 #3
Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #4
NCTraveler Apr 2014 #5
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #11
NCTraveler Apr 2014 #13
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #15
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2014 #19
NCTraveler Apr 2014 #20
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2014 #26
TwilightGardener Apr 2014 #6
KittyWampus Apr 2014 #7
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #8
Solly Mack Apr 2014 #9
Recursion Apr 2014 #10
Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #14
Puzzledtraveller Apr 2014 #16
Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #23
m-lekktor Apr 2014 #76
Recursion Apr 2014 #17
Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #18
Solly Mack Apr 2014 #27
Rex Apr 2014 #68
Recursion Apr 2014 #128
Solly Mack Apr 2014 #130
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #29
yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #37
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #43
Bluenorthwest Apr 2014 #44
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #46
former9thward Apr 2014 #80
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #81
former9thward Apr 2014 #90
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #94
Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #100
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #104
qazplm Apr 2014 #113
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #118
Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #121
VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #137
Boom Sound 416 Apr 2014 #123
Post removed Apr 2014 #24
Recursion Apr 2014 #25
Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #28
Recursion Apr 2014 #30
questionseverything Apr 2014 #33
sakabatou Apr 2014 #12
blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #21
Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #22
rock Apr 2014 #31
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #32
randome Apr 2014 #34
questionseverything Apr 2014 #48
randome Apr 2014 #50
treestar Apr 2014 #85
randome Apr 2014 #87
Doctor_J Apr 2014 #135
Whisp Apr 2014 #35
fredamae Apr 2014 #36
riqster Apr 2014 #38
Submariner Apr 2014 #39
Sunlei Apr 2014 #40
KamaAina Apr 2014 #41
TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #51
PoliticalPothead Apr 2014 #42
randome Apr 2014 #49
Fumesucker Apr 2014 #45
themaguffin Apr 2014 #47
TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #56
themaguffin Apr 2014 #66
TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #114
themaguffin Apr 2014 #131
TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #132
Lars39 Apr 2014 #52
Ohio Joe Apr 2014 #53
leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #54
Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #57
leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #97
Blue_In_AK Apr 2014 #55
Half-Century Man Apr 2014 #58
Bluenorthwest Apr 2014 #59
Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #65
1StrongBlackMan Apr 2014 #60
Boom Sound 416 Apr 2014 #124
dionysus Apr 2014 #61
Blanks Apr 2014 #69
Adrahil Apr 2014 #62
Iggo Apr 2014 #63
polynomial Apr 2014 #64
whatchamacallit Apr 2014 #67
Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #70
bigwillq Apr 2014 #71
Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #72
brooklynite Apr 2014 #73
Rex Apr 2014 #74
Recursion Apr 2014 #129
Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #75
KamaAina Apr 2014 #77
bigwillq Apr 2014 #79
Brigid Apr 2014 #78
idendoit Apr 2014 #82
2pooped2pop Apr 2014 #83
treestar Apr 2014 #84
99Forever Apr 2014 #86
Sheepshank Apr 2014 #88
TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #115
Sheepshank Apr 2014 #133
TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #136
WillyT Apr 2014 #89
johnnyreb Apr 2014 #116
WillyT Apr 2014 #120
onethatcares Apr 2014 #91
Octafish Apr 2014 #92
trueblue2007 Apr 2014 #93
CFLDem Apr 2014 #95
bluestate10 Apr 2014 #96
DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #117
neverforget Apr 2014 #125
TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #139
Exposethefrauds Apr 2014 #98
Enthusiast Apr 2014 #99
Champion Jack Apr 2014 #101
cantbeserious Apr 2014 #102
RKP5637 Apr 2014 #103
onecaliberal Apr 2014 #105
nilesobek Apr 2014 #106
99Forever Apr 2014 #107
nilesobek Apr 2014 #109
99Forever Apr 2014 #110
karynnj Apr 2014 #108
marions ghost Apr 2014 #138
pansypoo53219 Apr 2014 #111
jmowreader Apr 2014 #112
Raksha Apr 2014 #119
Initech Apr 2014 #122
oldandhappy Apr 2014 #126
YOHABLO Apr 2014 #127
eShirl Apr 2014 #134

Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:23 PM

1. Yes.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:26 PM

2. Yes. Specifically, I want hearings and investigations into everything that happened after Sept. 11,

 

including the Iraq invasion, the phony evidence, and how it was all cooked up. This was the biggest disaster and mistake the USA has made in decades, and it needs a full investigation of why it happened. DUH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:28 PM

3. Yes.

Pure 'n' simple. And dick cheney too. And wolfie, and dougie, and scooter, and rummy, and contradicta…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:30 PM

4. Damn right.

We're already paying the consequences of not having done so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:34 PM

5. Voted no for a couple of reasons.

 

1) If it wasn't started on the first day of the administration it shouldn't start now. The administration could in no way justify the timing.
2) I don't think everything has been unmasked. Are you sure you know what has happened behind the curtains for the last 6 years? That would be asking a current administration to prosecute previous administration when all of the current administrations actions are not known. Might be more to the story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:38 PM

11. regarding your point #2:

 

I think anyone in any administration using torture should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm also very aware that it's never going to happen, but it should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:42 PM

13. Fully agree with what you said.

 

Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, as you said. I was just making the point of why the current administration might want to have nothing to do with a prosecution regarding torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:43 PM

15. Right--and I agree with your follow-up Have a great weekend. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #5)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:47 PM

19. I voted yes AND was cognizant of point 2

 

Easy to lose sight of right and wrong around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhaTHellsgoingonhere (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:54 PM

20. I don't think it is too difficult with respect to right and wrong.

 

It's just reality. Torture is wrong. Letting torturers go is wrong. Prosecuting someone for something you know you are personally guilty of would be right yet very stupid. Way more than right and wrong goes into these decisions. That is if the point is accurate in the first place, which I believe it to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:09 PM

26. You make waaaaaaay too much sense

 

Right and Wrong is partisan. I discovered that when I returned as an active DU member about a month ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:35 PM

6. It's too late now, maybe--but yeah. What a stain on our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:36 PM

7. No, I never though there should be prosecutions. Something like Truth & Reconciliations Hearings

 

that would make more sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:37 PM

8. Of course I do. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:37 PM

9. That should have happened, yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:38 PM

10. For breaking what law?

That's the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:42 PM

14. For violating the UN convention against torture?

 

This treaty was ratified by the US, I believe.

Therefore it is US law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:44 PM

16. and what if torture has taken place under our current president?

It very well could have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:59 PM

23. Yes that is possible

 

I don't know.

Obama did sign an executive order prohibiting 'enhanced interrogation techniques'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puzzledtraveller (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:33 PM

76. I don't have links to articles handy but

I can recall Jeremy Scahill making this claim awhile back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:44 PM

17. Ratified treaties must have enabling legislation to be binding criminal law

Do we have enabling legislation?

(I honestly have no idea.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:45 PM

18. I have no idea either. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:11 PM

27. We have federal statutes against torture, yes.

We had them before Bush was in office. We had them while he was in office. They are still on the books.

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code

Now, the torture enabling Congress under Bush did change the wording of the 1996 law by lifting the definitions of torture from the torture enabling DOJ's torture memos. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 changed the language of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

The War Crimes Act originally said ANY breach of Common Article 3 - the MCA 2006 amended the WCA 1996 and added the word grave - as in any grave breach. And with Bush's DOJ redefining torture, you can see how this was a CYA approved by Congress.

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/faqs%3A-military-commisions-act


http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL33662_10022006.pdf

Pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (S. 3930; P.L. 109-XX
[public law number not yet assigned]), approved by Congress in September 2006, the
War Crimes Act criminalizes only those Common Article 3 violations labeled as
“grave breaches.” Previously, any violation of Common Article 3 constituted a
criminal offense under the War Crimes Act. This report discusses current issues
surrounding the War Crimes Act, including amendments made to it by the Military
Commissions Act.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Crimes_Act_of_1996


http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule156


Military Commissions Act of 2009

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-military-commissions-changes-law

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41163.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #27)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:41 PM

68. Thank you!

 

I thought we did!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #27)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:55 PM

128. So, the thing about CYAs is that they tend to C As.

Now, the torture enabling Congress under Bush did change the wording of the 1996 law by lifting the definitions of torture from the torture enabling DOJ's torture memos. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 changed the language of the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Yup. That's the problem, particularly since they granted retroactivity. So, again, what law do you use to charge him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #128)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:03 PM

130. That change doesn't prevent prosecutions. The law still applies.

I only said they changed the wording of the 1996 Act. I never said that prevented prosecutions under the federal statute. It was an attempt by the Bush administration and the DOJ, with the help of Congress, to

downgrade certain forms of torture so as to claim they didn't rise to grave breaches.

Waterboarding and torturing someone to death are both grave breaches. (and the U.S. did both more than once)




So, again - I gave you the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #14)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:15 PM

29. then shouldn't it be up to the Hague?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:35 PM

37. We don't fall under The Hague at all.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #37)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:38 PM

43. But Obama IS working on THAT...

 

Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the court.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:38 PM

44. Nope, the US is not a signatory and does not participate in the World Court

 

Den Hague has no authority nor power to do a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #44)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:40 PM

46. Obama is changing that....much to your chagrin...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

Positions in the United States concerning the ICC vary widely. The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the court.[3]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:59 PM

80. You can bold Wiki entries all you want.

ICC has never been ratified by the U.S. and there are no plans to do so. It has no jurisdiction in the U.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #81)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:23 PM

90. If you want to ignore reality go ahead.

The ICC has no jurisdiction and has never been ratified by the U.S. Harry Reid could have placed it before the Senate anytime in the last 6 years. He never has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #90)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 08:05 PM

94. I gave you facts that we HAVE progressed on THAT too!

 

denial is not a river in Egypt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #94)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:54 AM

100. only progress that matters

Is ratification in the Senate.

Untt then, they have no power over any us citizen in our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #100)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:17 AM

104. No actually...progress IS progress.....

 

always....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #94)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:37 PM

113. the only progress

is ratification in the Senate, until then, it isn't a treaty, and thus, is not law.

Period, full stop. I don't care about being part of the ICC one way or the other, but right now, whatever accommodations we may make, it isn't law here in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm (Reply #113)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 02:37 PM

118. to YOU....

 

but you are not the sole arbiter of what IS or isn't progress are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #118)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:29 PM

121. what do you define as

Progress?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #121)

Tue Apr 8, 2014, 03:53 PM

137. Definitions....

 

prog·ress
noun
ˈprägrəs,ˈprägˌres,ˈprōˌgres/
1.
forward or onward movement toward a destination.
"the darkness did not stop my progress"
synonyms: forward movement, advance, going, progression, headway, passage More


What is YOUR definition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:50 PM

123. I don't think that makes it us law

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)


Response to Post removed (Reply #24)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:06 PM

25. In violation of what section of the US code or UCMJ?

This is a more complex question than you may think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:12 PM

28. oh now its just the US code?


Or the MCMJ?


LIsten , my father had friends that were waterboarded by the Japanese

They hung for that

You are trying to legitimize torture like the NAZIS because it was legal for them to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ichingcarpenter (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:16 PM

30. UCMJ, not MCMJ

And, yes, generally, when you charge someone, you have to have controlling legislation to do that under.

I'm not saying there's not a case (I think there is, narrowly, particularly for Yee and W), just that it's not as simple as people think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:39 PM

12. Yes, but it'll never happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:54 PM

21. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:55 PM

22. Truth & Reconciliations Hearings

LOL...... they should of had those in Nazi germany.

Torture.... is non negotiable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:16 PM

31. I don't like how you phrased the choices, so I'll rephrase my answer below

George W. Bush should be prosecuted for torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:20 PM

32. Yes. And, the ones who actually performed the torture.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:23 PM

34. They gave themselves legal cover. It's reprehensible and plain wrong but...

 

...they covered themselves as far as they could. The public would be torn to pieces debating the meaning of 'torture' and whether or not Bush & Cheney at least thought they were acting in the nation's best interests. Clearly they didn't but that's what the arguments would be about and there would be nothing to gain by it.

Would it make us a better people? I doubt it.

I agree with a Truth & Reconciliation Commission or something comparable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:44 PM

48. legal cover not possible for this


Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

The translator was an American Egyptian who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.

Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman’s “stick” all of which were apparently photographed.

From the Taguba Report – originally published in 2004 – we know that a translator named Abu Hamid committed sodomy on prisoners under the supervision – and with the participation – of several soldiers. One of the prisoners sodomized may have been Hilas, who also reported sexual abuse with a “phosphoric light”. Hilas describes all of these events being photographed. Here is Hilas’ sworn affidavit, which was part of the Taguba Report.

Other prisoners, such as Mustafa Jassim Mustafa, also confirmed in sworn declarations rape with a “phosphoric light”.


///////////////////////

I have more faith in us, I am sure we can agree that rape, beatings that lead to death, waterboarding are torture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:48 PM

50. I agree, anything of that nature should be prosecuted no matter what.

 

Waterboarding is what I meant when I said 'legal cover'. Makes me wonder, though, if they didn't have some other form of 'paper protection' in place. A 'Top Secret Finding' or something.

But yes, anything outside that, I would be in favor of prosecuting to whatever level was necessary.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:51 PM

85. +1 they would fight those issues at every level in the courts

They would have money for lawyers to brief and raise every issue they could think of from Executive Privilege to international charters.

It would not be so easy as its advocates think it would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #85)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:03 PM

87. And in the process damage the Democratic brand.

 

Of course I understand that truth trumpets branding but I think Obama sees the negatives as outweighing the positives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 7, 2014, 12:06 PM

135. the public is already torn to pieces

 

to a great extent because this was never aired out. Every Republican administration gets away with more heinous criminal activity than the one before it. Someone needs to deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:24 PM

35. This is a really tough one!

 

I would love to see his ass and Rumfeld's and Cheney's and Rice in prison. And not one of them fancy holiday inn ones, the kind that regular people are put in for something as idiotic as marijuana. Add many names to that - Wolfowitz, o, so many. - it would be a dream come true.

If the Justice dept did this on the 11th hour of Obama's term, then the next Dem pres would be even more paralyzed than Obama was, what with all the hew and cry. Plus there would be even a bigger revolt of the fuckwads, the baggers and the likes, the militia type that would cease this opportunity to go completely haywire.

I would want some kind of punishment for all the 'good dems' that voted for this atrocity too. If the system was working right and people voted their conscience and not their pocketbooks there could be no way the Chimp and Co. could do what they did - home invade a sovereign country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:35 PM

36. If there is solid evidence

--yes, upon evidence of said crimes? Investigations based upon the evidence should begin without delay and if the conclusion renders guilt then they, like All the rest of us-should be held accountable. We are oft times "tossed a bone" for punishing the "underlings" when the orders come from the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:35 PM

38. Where is the "Fucking Hell Yes" option?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:37 PM

39. No. It would be a waste of Obama's time

Dubya should just be stripped of his secret service protection then air dropped into downtown Baghdad. The local Sunni and Shiite welcoming committee would take care of AWOL boy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:37 PM

40. Yes, but that will never happen because bush et all are immune because of our laws.

Wouldn't mind if another country, (any country!!!) countries set-up an International Court. To late for that action now too.

Obama doesn't even have the 'power' to keep evil-Cheney out of the closed door meetings he always has with our current Congress. I don't think Cheney should even be allowed in the USA, he should put his citizenship in Dubai to good use and stay there forever. All of them should be on the no fly list, get out and stay out.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:38 PM

41. No

 

he should be prosecuted for torture by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:49 PM

51. How so? Are they just going to turn themselves over?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:38 PM

42. Absolutely. Although it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the Obama administration.

Considering the fact that, under this presidency, inmates at Guantanamo Bay who engaged in a hunger strike were force fed in an extremely painful procedure that the UN Human Rights Commission regards as a form of torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticalPothead (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:44 PM

49. So let them die because the GOP refuses to release them?

 

I think that was actually a very tough call for anyone to make.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:39 PM

45. So what percentage of liberal Democrats think Dubya should be prosecuted for torture?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:41 PM

47. I don't see the point of this. Ain't ever, ever, ever going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to themaguffin (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:01 PM

56. Then there is no legitimate rule of law, leaving us with just us and no justice.

It also means the high probability of a death spiral of institutional entropy that will consume anything beyond window dressing for broad prosperity and self determination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:38 PM

66. and it ain't happening. So just give up on life, or work on what CAN happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to themaguffin (Reply #66)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:08 PM

114. This is basic there is no "can", if we can't then anything that can happen is a gift not the fruit

of people power or rule of law as neither has significant bearing in the affairs of state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #114)

Sun Apr 6, 2014, 10:54 AM

131. That's what I'm there is no "can" in this, so focus on what what CAN be done. Not wishing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to themaguffin (Reply #131)

Sun Apr 6, 2014, 12:24 PM

132. Nothing can be done then, we can be granted a few boons that don't cost anything.

Focus on what? What kind of dog a politician can get?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:50 PM

52. Hell, yes. "A Guide to the Memos on Torture":

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:53 PM

53. I voted Pass... And I'll tell you why...

It could be that I am taking the wording of the OP a bit literal... I also may not understand exactly how all of this should work so... Those two things being said...

I think what should have happened on day one of President Obama's term was to go to whatever world body (The Hague? The UN? I'm not sure) and said that he wants initiate and co-operate fully with an investigation into the torture allegations of the previous President... And then fully opened the government for examination of the allegations. This, to be followed up by a US investigation of the same allegations.

Prosecution by both would be based on the crimes uncovered.

The reason I voted pass was simply because of the wording 'should be prosecuted'... That should not happen until after a complete investigation. It absolutely should not have been, nor should it continue to be un-investigated thoroughly.

Perhaps nit-picky on the wording but... That is what I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:57 PM

54. i want invetigations into why impeachment was off the table

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:01 PM

57. Huh? A criminal investigation into why Congress took impeachment of Bush off the table?

 

I'm not sure taking impeachment off the table is a crime that can be prosecuted by the DOJ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #57)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 06:50 AM

97. i know, but that's what i want

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:58 PM

55. Although I think Cheney is more guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:06 PM

58. Yes.

I've always thought that the "protect the image of the office of the President" meme used by Ford to justify the pardon of Nixon was deeply flawed. The extension of "protect the image of the United States" by burying or ignoring the wrong doings of elected officials is even more flawed.
In order to protect the image of the Unites States and any elected office, we need public inquests, trials, and sentencing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:07 PM

59. Obama's claims of Big Religion are so bogus while he looks the other way at

 

torture of children and others. DaVinci said 'He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur' and that's Obama at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:21 PM

65. Big Religion?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:12 PM

60. I voted No ...

 

not because I don't believe torture is a horrendous crime; but rather, because it would set an even worse precedent, as succeeding administrations will take to prosecuting previous administrations as a matter of course.

The country would not survive that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #60)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:53 PM

124. Fair, but mustn't the threat exist

 

Otherwise presidents are essentially immune, yes?

Unless they are impeached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:15 PM

61. in a perfect world, shrub, cheney, rummy, ect, would be up on treason and war crimes charges.

but if anyone here really thinks the American public at large is willing to get behind jailing the prior admin for life, or executing them, they're out of step with reality.

that would be Civil War II right there.

the entire govt would have ground to a halt 6 years ago and massive shit would have hit the fan. it's be a republican wet dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 04:34 PM

69. That's why I voted no...

If the administration sought to punish the actual torturers and during the course of the investigation George W. Bush was somehow implicated - then I can see him (and whoever else in the administration was mentioned) appearing before congress and answering some questions.

It isn't realistic to start at the top.

...and if the current administration would have gone down that path to begin with - the shit would never end.

It's a bad path to take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:15 PM

62. Ideally, yes. But it's a bad political precedent, IMO.

 

Once you start a cycle of such prosecutions, I think it leads down a very bad road. It's bad enough that the Republicans constantly want to overturn every Presidential election of the Democrat through impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:17 PM

63. I think he should be prosecuted, period.

Obama admin.

Clinton admin.

Warren admin.

John/Jane Doe admin.

Anybody. Somebody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:19 PM

64. America will never never never be what you think if they are not


Not to be a doomsayer but soon all America will understand it is the best alternative to expose the intentional profiteering and the criminal torture as political examples of the one percent oligarchies. Bush Cheney and the Koch bothers example the perfect too big to fail syndrome.

The Bush and Cheney administration is the nicety nice polished version of the Koch brothers. It is a destiny for this dynamic oil economic system in old exhaustible fossil fuel to one day in the “Eureka Moment” think it will take an eternity to convince America to vote for a Bush or Cheney and to watch out for the Koch money. That’s better than the guillotine.

They are all tied together especially tunneled under the radio electromagnetic waves, all hard wired to the Arabs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:40 PM

67. This is a serious question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:17 PM

70. Looks like DU sentiment is pretty overwhelming. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:20 PM

71. Yes (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:23 PM

72. It's very telling that 20 people voted no.

 

Very telling indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vashta Nerada (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:27 PM

73. Make that 21...

I'm still waiting for someone to identify the specific statutes violated for which criminal charges could be brought against the President and Vice President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:29 PM

74. Post #27

 

There ya go!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #74)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:56 PM

129. Post 27, which mentions the specific CYA law that is the problem?

If Congress declares something legal, it's pretty much impossible to charge someone for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:29 PM

75. Are you being serious?

 

April Fool's Day was three days ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vashta Nerada (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:38 PM

77. I voted No

 

simply because I believe that the appropriate forum for such a prosecution is The Hague.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vashta Nerada (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:43 PM

79. Not really.

 

Some have pretty decent reasons as to why they voted the way they did.
Plus, it's only a poll on a message board. Nothing to take too seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:41 PM

78. Yes, Obama should prosecute.

Will he? No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:33 PM

82. That's a moot point.

 

It hasn't happened yet and it won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:33 PM

83. and treason n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:50 PM

84. Good question. I say no because it would become a long circus

and he might be acquitted or have a judge make a legal ruling that lets him out. He would take it all the way to the SCOTUS and the country would end up focused on Bush. He'd have his defense daily on Faux Noise and the media.

It is not a simple prosecution as its advocates tend to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:59 PM

86. If we actually had a JUST administration...

... in office, you wouldn't even to have asked this question, it would have already happened and the war criminals of the Bush Crime Family would all be locked up in Supermax. Instead...

We are "looking forward."

And it's despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:05 PM

88. Since Dick and George were instrumental in the torture of non-US citizens

 

shouldn't it be the nation legal system (of those tortured nationals) to prosecute Dick and George, perhaps under international tribunals? I imagine the Iranians may have different standards than the Saudi Arabians, so would there need to be some sort of centralized set of standards, so should Dick and George be subjected individually to the legal standards of each individual nation rather than going through an international tribunal?

Does the USA represent persons from other nations and prosecute our own citizens in favor of a non US plaintiff?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be prosecuted, I just think it's down right messy and it's never been made clear to me where certain immunities end, and illegal starts. I can see any and all future Presidents stuck in a quagmire of milquetoast indecision, if they have to worry about every controversial decision being subject to future prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #88)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:14 PM

115. They tortured in our name, on our dime, and spread incalculable rot in our institutions.

Stop trying to pass the buck in pursuit of conflict avoidance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 7, 2014, 11:54 AM

133. your snark wasn't necessary on a valid question, where international law is confusing

 

I am not saying Bush and Cheney didn't authorize illegal torture. I would love so see them stand trial.

But my quesiton stands...does the USA prosecute itself, or should the country of the victim pursue the prosecution? And if the USA doesn't prosecute itself, why haven't any of those other nations pursued that avenue?

in your anger, and in a rush to deal out insults and snark, you completely avoided the question. Nice touch :rolleyes:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #133)

Tue Apr 8, 2014, 02:23 PM

136. What snark? Anger? Sure, guilty as charged. Snark? What I said doesn't even rise to mild sarcasm.

What insults?

There was no "avoidance" of any questions either. My statements were a direct response to the questions, that we are responsible for upholding our own rule of law.

I'm sorry you feel ill used for whatever reason but my response is serious and I see no real value in your questions. We won't extradite and we are not providing evidence that we almost wholly fully control so it sounds like a desire to duck the whole issue to me. If that wasn't your intent then fine but I don't see any functional context to allow the questions to be asked in seriousness or good faith. The crimes took place in our command and control, we have the primary duty to prosecute.

If someone from England is mugged in New York they don't appeal to Scotland Yard to arrest the mugger they go to the NYPD. It is our jurisdiction and we have the primary responsibility here.

I don't get what the argument against or offense at that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:20 PM

89. Damned Fuckin Tootin !!!

 

My Old Man Didn't Fight For THIS Shit... He Fought Against It...



Top row, second from left.



Link: http://www.vmb613.com/officers_and_men2.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WillyT (Reply #89)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:24 PM

116. Same here WillyT

Guadalcanal to Okinawa. And my dad didn't suffer all that for this shit either. Big existential thanks to your dad for providing air cover to my dad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnyreb (Reply #116)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 03:58 PM

120. (((((((johnnyreb)))))))

 






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:28 PM

91. I really think he should be prosecuted

by the people of the United States of America for war crimes and murder in the deaths of all the Iraqis and soldiers that have died

due to his lying about the lead up to war.

But that's just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:59 PM

92. Obama Administration SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE.

That's why in Federal Court, State Court and Local Court, the thing will read "The People versus George Walker Bush."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/bush-adminstration-convicted-of-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity/5336860

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 08:00 PM

93. I VOTED YES (170 votes) and clicked recommend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 08:07 PM

95. He'll might as well...

 

We're already halfway to a banana republic anyways...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Apr 4, 2014, 10:50 PM

96. No. If we prosecute every President for bad decisions, every President

alive today and those that are dead would have served prison terms after leaving office. I am no GW Bush fan, he was the worst President in my lifetime and arguably one of the worst in history. But, I believe that GW Bush is a decent person who made horrible decisions and allowed horrible people to coach and mislead him.

I want to see the people that caused Bush to get elected in 2000 take responsibility for voting for Nader in key states, there are some that red faced deny responsibility on DU and use all type of smokescreens to not take responsibility. Once those people take responsibility for electing Bush, then I will listen to any argument about bringing him to trail for misdeeds of his administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #96)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:30 PM

117. You don't want to go after Bush, but you have it in for Nader voters

 

Those two short paragraphs tell me all I'll ever need to know about you. Thanks. Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #117)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:03 PM

125. Disgusting isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #96)

Tue Apr 8, 2014, 05:24 PM

139. How the hell is George W. Bush not accountable and responsible for his own actions?

Why does his mass murdering, torturing, thieving, polluting, lying, New Orleans drowning, warmongering ass grade as decent?

I bet there are millions that have done far less evil in this world that you'd have much less generous appraisals of.

How many hundreds of thousands and millions are dead, sick, homeless, hopeless, and destitute because of the acts and apathy of your "decent man"? What does "decent" even mean? White, old money, and connected?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 06:56 AM

98. Yes and prosecute EVERYONE and ANYONE involved regardless of party

 

Let the chips fall where they may, even if it means some in the current administration are prosecuted too.

Here is something to consider, in 16 it is possible that the Pubs can get control of all 3 branches and if they can reach back and find a way to prosecute Dems they will.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 08:08 AM

99. For torture and other crimes.

Torture is the greatest crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:56 AM

101. I don't see it happening…

It seems like some kind of deal has been made…

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:57 AM

102. Yes - Absoulutely - Without A Doubt - He Should Pay Dearly For His Crimes

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:02 AM

103. Bush and clearly a number of others. Bush was a tool, there were many others

pushing Bush to the forefront.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:27 AM

105. Yes!

Supposedly this is a nation of laws. Punishment for breaking laws should not be reserved for the politically powerless. The crimes committed by Bushco in our names for the sake of controlling oil deceitfully wrapped in freedom for the oppressed should be punished to the fullest extent. Anyone with their fingerprints on the most disastrous decision made by a administration in my lifetime should suffer the consequences of their heinous actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:53 AM

106. I did not vote out of fear of a rumor

that a DU member is playing statistician with polling data.

If there ever were a legitimate investigation, plenty of Democrats would be swept up and jailed as a result of enabling the neo-cons. Let that be a lesson for all Democrats.

The last government cannot pass the Nurenburg trial tests. Could the present one pass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nilesobek (Reply #106)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:00 AM

107. War crimes are war crimes.

Those that commit them should be prosecuted, REGARDLESS of whether they are Team Red or Team Blue. Justice dealt out by or not for political reasons only, is immoral and unethical.

Period.

No more excuses for not doing the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #107)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:09 AM

109. Fuzzy, warm feelings surround me

when I hear talk of "truth and reconciliation committees." Such a deterrent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nilesobek (Reply #109)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:16 AM

110. I have no idea what your point is. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:08 AM

108. Very hard question

The most important step that Obama took was to immediately end these procedures as soon as he was in office. At some level, it would have been ideal had he immediately asked the Justice Department to investigate and if necessary indict anyone who broke the law - with the intention of going all the way to Bush if the trail (as we all think it did ) led there.

Separately, either the House or Senate could have started investigations. I am not positive which committee would have had the jurisdiction - I think it would be the intelligence committees. This approach, rather than the executive branch approach, likely would have hobbled the Congress from passing the needed stimulus package. Remember that until Specter changed parties there was no way to pass anything without some Republicans. If I had to guess, if there was a strong effort to do this in Senate (the House only needed 50%), there would have been even less passed. In addition, it would have been less clear that the Democrats DID try to work with the Republicans - making the false equivalency.

Now, 5 years later, you could argue that Congress is not working with the President anyway - so there is nothing there to lose. One major question is whether it would harm US foreign policy ability more to put this all out in the open or if it is kept quiet. The other question is whether they can get convictions. Especially as you moved to well known people, would jurors vote to convict - when it means they are voting that their country committed war crimes. Imagine the damage if graphic compelling evidence is exposed and they are NOT convicted. (Note that the Iran/Contra indictments were for lying to Congress - not for the actions themselves.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #108)

Tue Apr 8, 2014, 04:22 PM

138. So maybe

those are some reasons why it would work better at an international level.

Refresh my memory--how do we know that Obama "immediately ended these procedures?"

It was Cheney's & co's war. Don't care what happens to the Chimp puppet. He rubber stamped everything. Which is complicity, but he was not the mastermind.

All these skeletons in the national closet...but the blood seeps out. The victims (and I include the people of this country who did not want the war, and even those who were sold it on a lie) --are a troubled lot.

Everybody knows our leaders committed unspeakable war crimes. It's the facing of the truth that is the problem. There won't be true healing until it is fully acknowledged. I wouldn't worry about fear of not getting a conviction for the criminals. It is all about the lessons learned, and the change in policy that brings (eg Germany). Never again.



Americans --are we people who take responsibility or are we people who hide and evade and deny? To just "let this go" is an extremely bad precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:01 PM

111. i think we need to waterboard both W + cheeney on live teevee + then say we are sorry for these

miserable leaders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:03 PM

112. He should be prosecuted for something

I like the Eliot Ness approach to this: Eliot Ness was charged with putting Al Capone in prison. Not "in prison for bootlegging" or "in prison for murder" but "in prison." Mindful of the fact Capone liked killing people who crossed him (like juries), Ness' Special Squad prepared many cases against Capone; if he was acquitted on one charge the government could immediately try him on another. Fortunately, this subterfuge proved unnecessary; the jury in the first case brought convicted him.

Bush and his people have committed thousands of crimes - torture, kidnapping, illegal wiretapping, accounting fraud...as long as Shrub Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez wind up in general population at one of our fine federal prisons (ADX Florence sounds good to me) for the rest of their miserable lives, I care not what they're convicted of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 03:51 PM

119. Yes. Just because it will never happen doesn't mean it shouldn't.

And if not by the Obama administration, then by the next administration. There's no statute of limitations on war crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:47 PM

122. Bush? Maybe. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice? Hell fucking yes!

Bush definitely needs to be arrested and prosecuted but for very different reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:15 PM

126. Rumsfeld and Cheney belong in jail.

I don't much care about the retired artist. He did not know what he was doing. The other two did know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:52 PM

127. I just got through reading ''Kill Anything That Moves" by Nick Turse and>

 

We should have prosecuted thousands responsible for the war crimes carried out during that ''war''. Do you really think we're going to get any justice for those who were tortured or the fact that the invasion of Iraq was brought forth with lies and deception? The thousands of Iraqi's who were needlessly murdered by an invasion based on lies? The billions upon billions of U.S. dollars wasted stuffing these fat cat contractors? The lie that we tell young soldiers coming home without legs and arms ... that they were there to fight for American's freedom? Really? You think any president would even go near that .. much less Hillary Clinton, who did vote to invade Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Mon Apr 7, 2014, 11:58 AM

134. no; if done it should be at the international level

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread