I support the prosecution of Bush administration criminals by the Obama administration Y/N

[bobthedrummer]

This is so easy to DU-where are you at on this simple question?

I'll even include an undecided choice for the political operatives here.

[bobthedrummer]

1. keep this kicked for a few hours DU...

:patriot:

[20score]

3. Okay.

On edit:

And hell yes!

[pleah]

2. K&R YES! YES! YES!

Oh, and hell yes! I am so sick of seeing these thugs get away with all their crimes.

[ThomWV]

4. If law is not enforced then in short time there is no law.

[rudy23]

5. There's NO WAY any of these people are going to be held accountable

Obama's going to let them off the hook, and Rahm is going to badcop us, the "far left" for daring to hold our leaders accountable to Constitutional law.

[rhett o rick]

9. I think that Congress will not call for the prosecution of many politicians because it mite make

them vulnerable for the same accountability.

[Independent_Liberal]

16. And there's NO WAY we'll see a black president in this lifetime either.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. I support it, but I don't expect it.

[Greyhound]

7. Who voted no? That's pretty shocking. n/t

[rhett o rick]

8. I think what we are going to find is the attitude that we must move on and not look back. That's

what's happened in the past.

[Independent_Liberal]

13. That attitude is what the problem is. It's what got us into this mess.

And if we keep that attitude the crooks will just keep coming back over and over to commit more and even worse crimes.

"They'll get away with it." = "I accept that they'll be back again to do it in the future and I don't care."

[rhett o rick]

19. I agree. But what is the remedy? Our Congress-critters will not listen to us. nm

[Beam Me Up]

30. If so, I see BIG PROBLEMS for the Dems in the next election cycle.

I, for one, can not support people who condone criminality, ESPECIALLY of this calibre. It is degrading to our Constitution, our democracy, our national interests and national security.

[rhett o rick]

34. And here is the rub. You do not have a choice. Demo incumbents can not be beaten in

a primary. Of course the exception that proves the rule is Lieberman as he still got to keep his seat even though defeated in the primary. The "system" favors incumbents. They know it and therefore threats to replace them fall on deaf ears. I wish it weren't this way, but we have very little influence on our Congress-critters unless we threaten to vote republican (wash my mouth out with soap).

[Pastiche423]

39. W/the exception of one low information person

the "noes" are too chickenshit to defend their indefensable position.

[rhett o rick]

10. Can't you put in a category stronger than merely "yes"? How about "You're GD right". Or "F-yes".nm

[Lincolngirl]

11. I would love to see it.

Let em set a new precedent here.
Can't get away with it just because you are the Pres! VP, or any of em!

[H2O Man]

12. Yes.

Definitely.

[snappyturtle]

14. We must do this. K&R nt

[madokie]

15. You durn toot'en

[Solly Mack]

17. Yes please

[Guaranteed]

18. I support prosecution in the event of any significant obstruction of Obama's agenda.

The Republicans can't get in the way of his cleaning up their mess and still expect to get away with what they did.

[Breeze54]

20. Only the House and Senate can try and convict and Impeach... Obama has no say in it.

YES!!!!!!!

I want the Perp walk, the frog march, the indictments, the trials, the prosecution, the convictions and the punishment ASAP!!!! :grr:

[H2O Man]

22. Not exactly true.

The Congress can impeach, which is a civil trial. They can do so for "high crimes and misdemeanors," which means criminal activity and abuses of the power of office. Doing so can only result in civil penalties.

The Department of Justice can prosecute on federal charges. These are criminal charges, but not the abuse of the power of office. If found guilty, a criminal court can impose more serious punishmenmts.

A state attorney general or a county/city district attorney could also prosecute Bush and/or Cheney. In this situation, it would again be in criminal court, but on state charges.

[Breeze54]

24. Thanks, H2O Man but what I meant was that Obama can only pardon., He does NOT have...

.... absolute rule!!! It seems to me, that there are many here at DU,

that seem to think we've just elected a King!! :wtf:

That is, basically, what I was trying to dispel.

Obama is NOT a KING!!!! That meme is starting to get under my skin. :grr:

I really wish 'some' DUers understood the branches of government and how they work, you know?

I think you're just the person to explain it to all!!! ;) Will you, please? :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Edweird]

21. No.The reason is PRECEDENT.

Setting that kind of precedent would have horrific consequences for EVERY Democratic president that was followed by a republican president. Right now there are a bunch of rightwingers second guessing the whole 'unitary executive' song and dance. Why? Because they set a dangerous precedent that may well be used against them. Let's think a little further than 10 seconds into the future.

I would LOVE to see bush/cheney and every single neo-con that enabled them in any way prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and punished so severely that it gives every citizen nightmares for the rest of their lives. I am NOT, however willing to throw EVERY future Democratic president to the wolves to achieve that.

I WOULD support the prosecution of Reid and Pelosi after Jan 20. They enabled and are complicit. Go get 'em.

[Greyhound]

25. What gibberish, they are specifically the reason the impeachment process

was put into The Constitution. They are in office as the result of a coup, they have committed so many crimes while in office that when someone does bother to list them it is too long to read, and they have stated on several occasions that they intend to commit further crimes before they are through.

:wtf: are you talking about?

[Edweird]

26. Exactly. They ARE the reason impeachment exists.

How hard is it for you to understand that if we go after a FORMER president, that will set a precedent?
In other words, that hasn't happened before. You with me so far? Am I going too fast?
Now here's where it gets tricky, so I'll try to go super slow for you.
If we prosecute a FORMER republican president, you can be absolutely assured that every FORMER Democratic president will be prosecuted for anything and everything by a following republican president. republicans are just those kind of petty assholes. You still with me, or did I lose you already? Prosecuting a FORMER president has terrible implications for all future Democratic presidents. (Obama included.. he may very well be followed by a republican). If you still do not understand, please ask an adult to help explain it you.

[Beam Me Up]

29. Only if he/she broke the law as * et al has. n/t

[Edweird]

31. Nonsense. Retribution is part of the RW gospel. There was this president named Bill Clinton

maybe you've heard of him. Impeachment is supposed to be used on exactly the kind of bastards that bush/cheney and crew are, but it was used on Bill Clinton *simply because they could*. Get it?

[Beam Me Up]

41. I've head that argument before. I don't buy it.

I don't mean to say I think you're incorrect in your assessment. But yours is an argument for 'political expediency', contrary to both ethics and principal, not to mention the rule of law. Crimes have been committed -- high crimes, egregious crimes. This is not trivial. You've anticipated what the Republicans (now a minority and now a party in utter disarray) will do if we impeach, try and convict the * cabal. But you've not anticipated what they'll do if we don't or how this will reflect upon Democrats. Completely undermines their credibility so far as I'm concerned. Either we're a party of law and principal or we are not.

[Edweird]

43. Where did you get your definition of 'political expediency' and 'rule of law' from?

I'm just a blue collar guy (albeit, an educated one) that likes to think he has a couple of brain cells bouncing off of each other. From where I sit, a sitting president pursuing criminal charges against a FORMER president is the very definition of 'political expediency'. It is also a perfect example of how to act outside 'the rule of law'. I am in no way opposed to impeachment. I supported impeachment when many here felt it was 'politically expedient' not to pursue it. I also support war crimes charges BROUGHT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS. I am completely and resolutely opposed to ANY further expansion of unchecked presidential powers. After the last 8 years I've-had-quite-enough-of-that-thank-you-very-much. In other words, I am AGAINST 'political expediency' and FOR 'the rule of law'. I believe a misunderstanding has led you think otherwise.

Furthermore, I cannot imagine a more foolish justification for such a potentially devastating precedent than "Republicans (now a minority and now a party in utter disarray)". Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? You are endorsing a power that will allow every sitting president to charge the preceding with crimes? If * had that power,I have no doubt that Bill Clinton would be in prison at this very moment. Who will be president in 4 years? 8 years? 12 years? I don't know and neither do you. I support checks and balances and rule of law. I oppose making our president into a king.

BTW, the GOP is hurting. RIGHT NOW. It is not vanquished, it is not dead. It will be back. It will return with some slick new bullshit and they will lie, cheat and steal their way back into power. Count on it. Making any LONG TERM decisions based on the fact that the RW is wounded for now shows a stunning lack of foresight. Learn from the RW's mistakes. "Unitary executive" was all we heard about 3 years ago. The cheerleaders for it are now singing the blues... Why?
Think past the next 4 or 8 years.

[rhett o rick]

36. So if I hear you right, we shouldn't hold these criminals accountable because in the future

Democrats may also be held accountable? This is the attitude that got us where we are. These criminals have gotten away with their crimes against humanity in the past and they will be back unless HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR CRIMES. If you steal a loaf of bread from 7-11 you go to jail, but if you are responsible for the deaths of a MILLION innocent Iraqi's, we will give you a pass.

[Edweird]

37. No. They SHOULD be held accountable. They SHOULD have been impeached already.

However, I do not think setting the precedent of a sitting president prosecuting the preceding president is wise. War crimes tribunals at the Hague? Hell Yeah! Impeachment before Jan. 20? Fuck Yeah! But this idea would open a pandoras box of unintended consequences.

[rhett o rick]

38. This isn't impeachment, this is war crimes. I think the sitting president needs to do this

and take his chances. Otherwise these murdering and torturing bastards will get away with it. It makes a mockery of the rule of law. And they will be emboldened to continue their hateful ways.
Try them and take our chances, is what I say.

[Edweird]

45. I fully support war crimes charges. I am against expanding unchecked presidential powers.

Remember, if *OUR* president can do it, *THEIR* president can do it.
I am FOR the rule of law. Which, to me, means bringing war crimes charges through the proper channels, not ASSUMING NEW PRESIDENTIAL POWERS. I supported impeachment when many were against it. I support taking down Pelosi, Reid and Lieberman for their part in enabling this disaster and for abdicating their responsibilities to provide checks and balances. They failed us miserably. * was allowed to grab unprecedented presidential power, which we need to work on reversing instead of expanding simply because OUR GUY is in the white house now. I do not support making our president into a king.

[RC]

23. Turn them over to the World Court.

Set things up so it can come here and haul them away. Problem solved.

[Zorra]

27. Vincent Bugliosi would be the perfect Special Prosecutor for this job. n/t

[fascisthunter]

35. I Could Imagine... wow

[Beam Me Up]

28. This question has to be asked??! n/t

[fascisthunter]

32. KICK!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[mmonk]

40. Or at least a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I'm willing for granting amnesty just to get the truth out there and on record. I'm against sweeping it all under the rug and allowing unconstitutional actions and laws stand,

[shimmergal]

46. Once they're out of office,

there'll be some "true confessions" published exposing more Bush admin. crimes.

Realistically I don't think we can expect the new admin. of Congress to prosecute them, both because of the precedent, and just because there's too much else to deal with.

However, other people (and perhaps the Almighty?) may have different priorities. I do like Vincent Bugliosi's idea that any local prosecutor could bring murder charges against Bush. And we need to be figuring out ways to siphon away as much of the taxpayer money, and other ill-gotten gains, that BushCheney and cronies have taken. What's that saying about "the wheels of justice grind slowly, but inexorably". {not an accurate quote, but that's the essence of it.)

[bobthedrummer]

42. ^

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. Absolutely not. By a court of law, sure, but NO to political prosecutions.

No "conviction" of one politician by other politicians has any legal or moral validity (C.F. Clinton, Bill).

The message politicians convicting Bush would send is not "Bush did something wrong" but "these politicians chose to convict Bush, probably for political reasons".

If you want Bush - or anyone else - meaningfully prosecuted, it needs to be done in a court of law, not by the government. I would have no problem with the administration providing evidence to such a court, but they must be acting solely as witnesses or enforcement, not as judge or jury.