Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:22 PM Apr 2014

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


60 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
52 (87%)
No
8 (13%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
139 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do you think George W. Bush should be prosecuted by the Obama administration for torture? (Original Post) Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 OP
Yes. hrmjustin Apr 2014 #1
Yes. Specifically, I want hearings and investigations into everything that happened after Sept. 11, quinnox Apr 2014 #2
Yes. calimary Apr 2014 #3
Damn right. Jackpine Radical Apr 2014 #4
Voted no for a couple of reasons. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #5
regarding your point #2: DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #11
Fully agree with what you said. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #13
Right--and I agree with your follow-up Have a great weekend. nt DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #15
I voted yes AND was cognizant of point 2 WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2014 #19
I don't think it is too difficult with respect to right and wrong. NCTraveler Apr 2014 #20
You make waaaaaaay too much sense WhaTHellsgoingonhere Apr 2014 #26
It's too late now, maybe--but yeah. What a stain on our country. TwilightGardener Apr 2014 #6
No, I never though there should be prosecutions. Something like Truth & Reconciliations Hearings KittyWampus Apr 2014 #7
Of course I do. nt DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #8
That should have happened, yes. Solly Mack Apr 2014 #9
For breaking what law? Recursion Apr 2014 #10
For violating the UN convention against torture? Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #14
and what if torture has taken place under our current president? Puzzledtraveller Apr 2014 #16
Yes that is possible Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #23
I don't have links to articles handy but m-lekktor Apr 2014 #76
Ratified treaties must have enabling legislation to be binding criminal law Recursion Apr 2014 #17
I have no idea either. nt Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #18
We have federal statutes against torture, yes. Solly Mack Apr 2014 #27
Thank you! Rex Apr 2014 #68
So, the thing about CYAs is that they tend to C As. Recursion Apr 2014 #128
That change doesn't prevent prosecutions. The law still applies. Solly Mack Apr 2014 #130
then shouldn't it be up to the Hague? VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #29
We don't fall under The Hague at all. yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #37
But Obama IS working on THAT... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #43
Nope, the US is not a signatory and does not participate in the World Court Bluenorthwest Apr 2014 #44
Obama is changing that....much to your chagrin... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #46
You can bold Wiki entries all you want. former9thward Apr 2014 #80
Try again... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #81
If you want to ignore reality go ahead. former9thward Apr 2014 #90
I gave you facts that we HAVE progressed on THAT too! VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #94
only progress that matters Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #100
No actually...progress IS progress..... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #104
the only progress qazplm Apr 2014 #113
to YOU.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #118
what do you define as Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #121
Definitions.... VanillaRhapsody Apr 2014 #137
I don't think that makes it us law Boom Sound 416 Apr 2014 #123
Post removed Post removed Apr 2014 #24
In violation of what section of the US code or UCMJ? Recursion Apr 2014 #25
oh now its just the US code? Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #28
UCMJ, not MCMJ Recursion Apr 2014 #30
prosecution is the only way back to civilized society questionseverything Apr 2014 #33
Yes, but it'll never happen sakabatou Apr 2014 #12
K&R blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #21
Truth & Reconciliations Hearings Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #22
I don't like how you phrased the choices, so I'll rephrase my answer below rock Apr 2014 #31
Yes. And, the ones who actually performed the torture. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2014 #32
They gave themselves legal cover. It's reprehensible and plain wrong but... randome Apr 2014 #34
legal cover not possible for this questionseverything Apr 2014 #48
I agree, anything of that nature should be prosecuted no matter what. randome Apr 2014 #50
+1 they would fight those issues at every level in the courts treestar Apr 2014 #85
And in the process damage the Democratic brand. randome Apr 2014 #87
the public is already torn to pieces Doctor_J Apr 2014 #135
This is a really tough one! Whisp Apr 2014 #35
If there is solid evidence fredamae Apr 2014 #36
Where is the "Fucking Hell Yes" option? riqster Apr 2014 #38
No. It would be a waste of Obama's time Submariner Apr 2014 #39
Yes, but that will never happen because bush et all are immune because of our laws. Sunlei Apr 2014 #40
No KamaAina Apr 2014 #41
How so? Are they just going to turn themselves over? TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #51
Absolutely. Although it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the Obama administration. PoliticalPothead Apr 2014 #42
So let them die because the GOP refuses to release them? randome Apr 2014 #49
So what percentage of liberal Democrats think Dubya should be prosecuted for torture? Fumesucker Apr 2014 #45
I don't see the point of this. Ain't ever, ever, ever going to happen. themaguffin Apr 2014 #47
Then there is no legitimate rule of law, leaving us with just us and no justice. TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #56
and it ain't happening. So just give up on life, or work on what CAN happen themaguffin Apr 2014 #66
This is basic there is no "can", if we can't then anything that can happen is a gift not the fruit TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #114
That's what I'm there is no "can" in this, so focus on what what CAN be done. Not wishing. themaguffin Apr 2014 #131
Nothing can be done then, we can be granted a few boons that don't cost anything. TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #132
Hell, yes. "A Guide to the Memos on Torture": Lars39 Apr 2014 #52
I voted Pass... And I'll tell you why... Ohio Joe Apr 2014 #53
i want invetigations into why impeachment was off the table leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #54
Huh? A criminal investigation into why Congress took impeachment of Bush off the table? Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #57
i know, but that's what i want leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #97
Although I think Cheney is more guilty. Blue_In_AK Apr 2014 #55
Yes. Half-Century Man Apr 2014 #58
Obama's claims of Big Religion are so bogus while he looks the other way at Bluenorthwest Apr 2014 #59
Big Religion? Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #65
I voted No ... 1StrongBlackMan Apr 2014 #60
Fair, but mustn't the threat exist Boom Sound 416 Apr 2014 #124
in a perfect world, shrub, cheney, rummy, ect, would be up on treason and war crimes charges. dionysus Apr 2014 #61
That's why I voted no... Blanks Apr 2014 #69
Ideally, yes. But it's a bad political precedent, IMO. Adrahil Apr 2014 #62
I think he should be prosecuted, period. Iggo Apr 2014 #63
America will never never never be what you think if they are not polynomial Apr 2014 #64
This is a serious question? whatchamacallit Apr 2014 #67
Looks like DU sentiment is pretty overwhelming. nt Cali_Democrat Apr 2014 #70
Yes (nt) bigwillq Apr 2014 #71
It's very telling that 20 people voted no. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #72
Make that 21... brooklynite Apr 2014 #73
Post #27 Rex Apr 2014 #74
Post 27, which mentions the specific CYA law that is the problem? Recursion Apr 2014 #129
Are you being serious? Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #75
I voted No KamaAina Apr 2014 #77
Not really. bigwillq Apr 2014 #79
Yes, Obama should prosecute. Brigid Apr 2014 #78
That's a moot point. idendoit Apr 2014 #82
and treason n/t 2pooped2pop Apr 2014 #83
Good question. I say no because it would become a long circus treestar Apr 2014 #84
If we actually had a JUST administration... 99Forever Apr 2014 #86
Since Dick and George were instrumental in the torture of non-US citizens Sheepshank Apr 2014 #88
They tortured in our name, on our dime, and spread incalculable rot in our institutions. TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #115
your snark wasn't necessary on a valid question, where international law is confusing Sheepshank Apr 2014 #133
What snark? Anger? Sure, guilty as charged. Snark? What I said doesn't even rise to mild sarcasm. TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #136
Damned Fuckin Tootin !!! WillyT Apr 2014 #89
Same here WillyT johnnyreb Apr 2014 #116
(((((((johnnyreb))))))) WillyT Apr 2014 #120
I really think he should be prosecuted onethatcares Apr 2014 #91
Obama Administration SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE. Octafish Apr 2014 #92
I VOTED YES (170 votes) and clicked recommend trueblue2007 Apr 2014 #93
He'll might as well... CFLDem Apr 2014 #95
No. If we prosecute every President for bad decisions, every President bluestate10 Apr 2014 #96
You don't want to go after Bush, but you have it in for Nader voters DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2014 #117
Disgusting isn't it? neverforget Apr 2014 #125
How the hell is George W. Bush not accountable and responsible for his own actions? TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #139
Yes and prosecute EVERYONE and ANYONE involved regardless of party Exposethefrauds Apr 2014 #98
For torture and other crimes. Enthusiast Apr 2014 #99
I don't see it happening… Champion Jack Apr 2014 #101
Yes - Absoulutely - Without A Doubt - He Should Pay Dearly For His Crimes cantbeserious Apr 2014 #102
Bush and clearly a number of others. Bush was a tool, there were many others RKP5637 Apr 2014 #103
Yes! onecaliberal Apr 2014 #105
I did not vote out of fear of a rumor nilesobek Apr 2014 #106
War crimes are war crimes. 99Forever Apr 2014 #107
Fuzzy, warm feelings surround me nilesobek Apr 2014 #109
I have no idea what your point is. n/t 99Forever Apr 2014 #110
Very hard question karynnj Apr 2014 #108
So maybe marions ghost Apr 2014 #138
i think we need to waterboard both W + cheeney on live teevee + then say we are sorry for these pansypoo53219 Apr 2014 #111
He should be prosecuted for something jmowreader Apr 2014 #112
Yes. Just because it will never happen doesn't mean it shouldn't. Raksha Apr 2014 #119
Bush? Maybe. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice? Hell fucking yes! Initech Apr 2014 #122
Rumsfeld and Cheney belong in jail. oldandhappy Apr 2014 #126
I just got through reading ''Kill Anything That Moves" by Nick Turse and> YOHABLO Apr 2014 #127
no; if done it should be at the international level eShirl Apr 2014 #134
 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
2. Yes. Specifically, I want hearings and investigations into everything that happened after Sept. 11,
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:26 PM
Apr 2014

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.

calimary

(82,566 posts)
3. Yes.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:28 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
5. Voted no for a couple of reasons.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:34 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
11. regarding your point #2:
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:38 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
13. Fully agree with what you said.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:42 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
20. I don't think it is too difficult with respect to right and wrong.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:54 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

(5,252 posts)
26. You make waaaaaaay too much sense
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:09 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
7. No, I never though there should be prosecutions. Something like Truth & Reconciliations Hearings
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:36 PM
Apr 2014

that would make more sense.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
14. For violating the UN convention against torture?
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:42 PM
Apr 2014

This treaty was ratified by the US, I believe.

Therefore it is US law.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
23. Yes that is possible
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:59 PM
Apr 2014

I don't know.

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

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
17. Ratified treaties must have enabling legislation to be binding criminal law
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:44 PM
Apr 2014

Do we have enabling legislation?

(I honestly have no idea.)

Solly Mack

(91,211 posts)
27. We have federal statutes against torture, yes.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:11 PM
Apr 2014

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

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
128. So, the thing about CYAs is that they tend to C As.
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:55 PM
Apr 2014
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?

Solly Mack

(91,211 posts)
130. That change doesn't prevent prosecutions. The law still applies.
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:03 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
43. But Obama IS working on THAT...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:38 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
44. Nope, the US is not a signatory and does not participate in the World Court
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:38 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
46. Obama is changing that....much to your chagrin...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:40 PM
Apr 2014
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]

former9thward

(32,642 posts)
80. You can bold Wiki entries all you want.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:59 PM
Apr 2014

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.

former9thward

(32,642 posts)
90. If you want to ignore reality go ahead.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:23 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Niceguy1

(2,467 posts)
100. only progress that matters
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:54 AM
Apr 2014

Is ratification in the Senate.

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

qazplm

(3,626 posts)
113. the only progress
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:37 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
137. Definitions....
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 03:53 PM
Apr 2014

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?

Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
25. In violation of what section of the US code or UCMJ?
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:06 PM
Apr 2014

This is a more complex question than you may think.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
28. oh now its just the US code?
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:12 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
30. UCMJ, not MCMJ
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:16 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
22. Truth & Reconciliations Hearings
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 01:55 PM
Apr 2014

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

Torture.... is non negotiable.

rock

(13,218 posts)
31. I don't like how you phrased the choices, so I'll rephrase my answer below
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:16 PM
Apr 2014

George W. Bush should be prosecuted for torture.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
34. They gave themselves legal cover. It's reprehensible and plain wrong but...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:23 PM
Apr 2014

...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]

questionseverything

(9,756 posts)
48. legal cover not possible for this
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:44 PM
Apr 2014

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
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
50. I agree, anything of that nature should be prosecuted no matter what.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:48 PM
Apr 2014

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]

treestar

(82,383 posts)
85. +1 they would fight those issues at every level in the courts
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:51 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
87. And in the process damage the Democratic brand.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:03 PM
Apr 2014

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]

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
135. the public is already torn to pieces
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 12:06 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
35. This is a really tough one!
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:24 PM
Apr 2014

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.

fredamae

(4,458 posts)
36. If there is solid evidence
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:35 PM
Apr 2014

--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.

Submariner

(12,548 posts)
39. No. It would be a waste of Obama's time
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:37 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
40. Yes, but that will never happen because bush et all are immune because of our laws.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:37 PM
Apr 2014

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.



PoliticalPothead

(220 posts)
42. Absolutely. Although it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the Obama administration.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:38 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
49. So let them die because the GOP refuses to release them?
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:44 PM
Apr 2014

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]

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
45. So what percentage of liberal Democrats think Dubya should be prosecuted for torture?
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:39 PM
Apr 2014

Inquiring minds want to know.

TheKentuckian

(25,311 posts)
56. Then there is no legitimate rule of law, leaving us with just us and no justice.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:01 PM
Apr 2014

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.

TheKentuckian

(25,311 posts)
114. This is basic there is no "can", if we can't then anything that can happen is a gift not the fruit
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:08 PM
Apr 2014

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

TheKentuckian

(25,311 posts)
132. Nothing can be done then, we can be granted a few boons that don't cost anything.
Sun Apr 6, 2014, 12:24 PM
Apr 2014

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

Ohio Joe

(21,842 posts)
53. I voted Pass... And I'll tell you why...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 02:53 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
57. Huh? A criminal investigation into why Congress took impeachment of Bush off the table?
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:01 PM
Apr 2014

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

Half-Century Man

(5,279 posts)
58. Yes.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:06 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
59. Obama's claims of Big Religion are so bogus while he looks the other way at
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:07 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
60. I voted No ...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:12 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

Boom Sound 416

(4,185 posts)
124. Fair, but mustn't the threat exist
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:53 PM
Apr 2014

Otherwise presidents are essentially immune, yes?

Unless they are impeached.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
61. in a perfect world, shrub, cheney, rummy, ect, would be up on treason and war crimes charges.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:15 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
69. That's why I voted no...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 04:34 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
62. Ideally, yes. But it's a bad political precedent, IMO.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:15 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Iggo

(47,818 posts)
63. I think he should be prosecuted, period.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:17 PM
Apr 2014

Obama admin.

Clinton admin.

Warren admin.

John/Jane Doe admin.

Anybody. Somebody.

polynomial

(750 posts)
64. America will never never never be what you think if they are not
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 03:19 PM
Apr 2014

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.
 

brooklynite

(96,641 posts)
73. Make that 21...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:27 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
129. Post 27, which mentions the specific CYA law that is the problem?
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:56 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
77. I voted No
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:38 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
79. Not really.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 05:43 PM
Apr 2014

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.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
84. Good question. I say no because it would become a long circus
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:50 PM
Apr 2014

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.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
86. If we actually had a JUST administration...
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 06:59 PM
Apr 2014

... 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.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
88. Since Dick and George were instrumental in the torture of non-US citizens
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:05 PM
Apr 2014

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.

TheKentuckian

(25,311 posts)
115. They tortured in our name, on our dime, and spread incalculable rot in our institutions.
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:14 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
133. your snark wasn't necessary on a valid question, where international law is confusing
Mon Apr 7, 2014, 11:54 AM
Apr 2014

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:

TheKentuckian

(25,311 posts)
136. What snark? Anger? Sure, guilty as charged. Snark? What I said doesn't even rise to mild sarcasm.
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 02:23 PM
Apr 2014

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.

johnnyreb

(915 posts)
116. Same here WillyT
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:24 PM
Apr 2014

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.

onethatcares

(16,395 posts)
91. I really think he should be prosecuted
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:28 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
92. Obama Administration SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE.
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 07:59 PM
Apr 2014

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

bluestate10

(10,942 posts)
96. No. If we prosecute every President for bad decisions, every President
Fri Apr 4, 2014, 10:50 PM
Apr 2014

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.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
117. You don't want to go after Bush, but you have it in for Nader voters
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:30 PM
Apr 2014

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

TheKentuckian

(25,311 posts)
139. How the hell is George W. Bush not accountable and responsible for his own actions?
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 05:24 PM
Apr 2014

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?

 

Exposethefrauds

(531 posts)
98. Yes and prosecute EVERYONE and ANYONE involved regardless of party
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 06:56 AM
Apr 2014

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.





RKP5637

(67,112 posts)
103. Bush and clearly a number of others. Bush was a tool, there were many others
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:02 AM
Apr 2014

pushing Bush to the forefront.

onecaliberal

(34,245 posts)
105. Yes!
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:27 AM
Apr 2014

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.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
106. I did not vote out of fear of a rumor
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:53 AM
Apr 2014

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?

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
107. War crimes are war crimes.
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:00 AM
Apr 2014

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.

nilesobek

(1,423 posts)
109. Fuzzy, warm feelings surround me
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:09 AM
Apr 2014

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

karynnj

(59,628 posts)
108. Very hard question
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:08 AM
Apr 2014

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.)

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
138. So maybe
Tue Apr 8, 2014, 04:22 PM
Apr 2014

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.

pansypoo53219

(21,209 posts)
111. i think we need to waterboard both W + cheeney on live teevee + then say we are sorry for these
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:01 PM
Apr 2014

miserable leaders.

jmowreader

(50,828 posts)
112. He should be prosecuted for something
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:03 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Raksha

(7,167 posts)
119. Yes. Just because it will never happen doesn't mean it shouldn't.
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 03:51 PM
Apr 2014

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

Initech

(100,595 posts)
122. Bush? Maybe. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice? Hell fucking yes!
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 09:47 PM
Apr 2014

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

oldandhappy

(6,719 posts)
126. Rumsfeld and Cheney belong in jail.
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:15 PM
Apr 2014

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

 

YOHABLO

(7,358 posts)
127. I just got through reading ''Kill Anything That Moves" by Nick Turse and>
Sat Apr 5, 2014, 10:52 PM
Apr 2014

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do you think George W. Bu...