John Dean on KO. Bush will not be prosecuted for torture.

[onehandle]

Said that Nixon was apparently right. When a President does it, it's not illegal.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I will settle for every single person around him being prosecuted.

It will still create the historical view that his administration was absolutely the worst ever in the history of this country.

[Dinger]

15. Me Too, Plus . . .

unsealing all the records, etc. to expose everything they've done, well o.k., almost everything.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. That would be great...

[lib2DaBone]

2. Thus Ends our Democracy.. Thus ends our Country...

[RollWithIt]

10. Democracy in America is alive and well

If Obama thinks it's wise to just bury Bush in the dustbin of history I am with him. The partisan tit for tat of the last 40 years has done our country absolutely no good. It's time for a fresh start in the 21st century.

[LynnTheDem]

14. "partisan tit for tat"???

War criminal.

Perp of one of the biggest batch of war crimes in 50 years.

And prosecuting him and his regime would be "partisan tit for tat"???

How many of your friends did you lose to George W. bUsh's illegal war of aggression against Iraq? I'm suspecting none.

[RollWithIt]

16. If you count my cousin on 9/11... one...

How about you go fuck yourself.

[LynnTheDem]

18. I count a fuck of a lot more than one for myself, dear.

Being military and all.

So right back atcha, dear.

[RollWithIt]

19. That's fine.. don't pretend to speak for everyone....

Not impressed by your command over grief and loss. You're not the only person who has lost and not everyone who has lost shares 100% of your viewpoints. I personally see no benefit to prosecuting Bush. It will simply continue to distract and divide the nation. I like Obama's direction so far.

When people disagree with me I don't drag out my dead relatives or friends like props to use as red capes in front of a bull.

So like I said, go fuck yourself. You shouldn't pretend to understand everyone. You need to start understand yourself.

[LynnTheDem]

20. You see "no benefit to prosecuting bUsh".

I personally know 38 reasons for prosecuting that motherfucker for his crimes against humanity.

My US soldier husband personally knows even more reasons.

And as I said previously, dear, go do likewise.

[Blarch]

24. You have no respect for our constitution.

[salguine]

17. It's not about fucking tit-for-tat. It's about these people turned the United States

of America—MY country—into a country that OPERATES SECRET PRISONS WHERE PEOPLE ARE TAKEN TO BE TORTURED. WHAT THE MOTHERFUCK IS THIS SHIT!? How anybody could possibly think this is best left to be forgotten is so fucking beyond me I can't even grasp it. These people made it legal for the government to literally disappear people—They can arrest you, and hold you basically forever without a trial, and what's more, they don't even have to let anyone know they even have you. What are we, fucking Chile in the '70s now? Do you realize how many people around the world are DEAD because of these monsters? How about a fresh start for all the hundreds of thousands of dead people!?

If what these people have done doesn't warrant prosecution, then nothing—NOTHING—will ever, ever warrant prosecution, ever again.

[Blarch]

23. Are you nuts ?

Obama doesn't have a choice, it is his duty to protect the constitution.

If he doesn't charge Bush this will set precedent for future presidents, it will leave torture on the table for future presidents.

"bury Bush in the dustbin of history" ...You mean cover-up war crimes.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. So you think the Constitution is bull

and justice equals arresting non violent criminals for the Prison Industry? Or are you saying a fresh start for everyone? Just Bush? How major does a crime have to be before you start calling justice revenge? Be specific.

[pocoloco]

3. LOL! We knew that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2382566

[midnight]

4. John Dean can say what he wants..... But it doesn't make it so.

[KoKo]

5. John Dean has been posting for years on how to Impeach Bushies...if he's given up ...it's

because he has a sense from Political Establishment that there's no longer any "WILL" to do it. Which is very sad and should cause us great concern. :-(

[Perky]

6. Why does this surprise some people??

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Nixon was absolutely correct

Name for me one instance in our country's history where a President went down for an abuse of power. Nixon's downfall was the cover-up of a petty crime. Nobody even considered prosecuting him for his illegal usage of police powers against his "enemies".

This is hardly shocking.

[Independent_Liberal]

8. Fuck John Dean and his hopelessness!

That doesn't mean we have to give up! We're going to keep at this until they all see their due justice!

[bdamomma]

11. this is a stain on all of us, if we do not hold these criminals

accountable.

[stillcool]

9. I had this daydream...

that there was a cache of lawyers called in to find any crimes against the Constitution the Bush Administration committed. I theorized that it should be limited to those in the Administration, not anyone tasked with doing the job. And I left out war crimes, because I don't know enough about international law, and I'm sure that Congress wouldn't go near it. I figured there were enough domestic crimes to form a consensus to prosecute, and if the accused were limited to the Administration than enough of the thugs would be let off the hook to make it work. It's nice to dream.

[political_Dem]

12. This makes me sad and angry.

But, I think what Mr. Obama ought to do is to have the U.S. join the I.C.C. Secondly, if there is someone who wants to prosecute Bush and his cronies, he shouldn't stand in their way.

But, I hope that the "team of rivals" business does not make Mr. Obama have a "conflict of interest" when it comes to doing the right things to expunge the ugliness that was the 43 Presidential Administration.

[Juche]

13. Maybe not in domestic court

I think too many people would be too cowed to do that domestically. But hopefully foreign court is still realistic. Some of the people tortured have been citizens of foreign nations like Spain. Not only that but some nations have universal jurisdiction where war crimes can be prosecuted even if the victim is not a citizen of that state. So internationally maybe 20 years down the road Bush may get arrested. But that is, in my view, the most realistic chance of him being held accountable.


At the very least watching higher ups in the Bush admin go to Germany to enjoy a nice dinner and end up in prison for a few weeks on charges of torture (until the US gov gets them out of prison, which sadly they would) would be fun to watch.

http://www.haitianalysis.com/law-order/human-rights-crusader-michael-ratner-we-ll-keep-going-after-bush-and-cheney-when-they-leave-office

If Bugliosi can get just one DA, prosecutor or state attorney general to pursue charges then that too could be a pathway.

[OwnedByFerrets]

21. He also added the word "unfortunately", if memory serves me right.

[H2O Man]

22. Respectfully disagree.

I do not think that was exactly what he said. First, of course, Nixon could not have been impeached or prosecuted had he been "right." He resigned before the House was going to impeach him, because he knew that even the republicans in the Senate would no longer support him. And Ford pardoned him, to save him from criminal prosecution. Dean is, of course, aware of that.

What I understood him to be saying was that those under Bush, who engaged in the actions that could potentially result in criminal prosecution, believe that they have a strong defense, based upon the controversial legal opinions that VP Cheney's office had the Justice Department draft. These take the position that if a person is following the President's orders in a time of war, that their actions cannot be prosecuted.

This is something that has been the subject of debate for a few years now. It is being discussed on shows like KO now, in the context of "will Bush grant pardons on his way out?" Recently, sources in the White House said there is no need to in the area of torture, because of the DoJ positions.

Others, such as Turley, believe that such a defense would not work. The real question, I believe, is if the democrats in the executive and legislative branches are willing to step up to the plate, or will they turn their backs on the rule of law?

[Blarch]

26. "or will they turn their backs on the rule of law?"

It is amusing to watch as Democrats go ape shit when Bush ignores the US constitution ...But when the Dem's ignore it they just shrug their shoulders.

Talk about hypocrisy.

[spanone]

25. then our constitution needs to be amended

[Blarch]

28. The OP is in-complete.

It should read.

When a president does it (and isn't held accountable) ...then it's not illegal.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/22/470nixon,0.jpg