Will Obama choose unity over justice regarding Bush?

[Invisible Chimp]

Obama pledged to be bipartisan and he talked a lot about no blue America or red America, just America. An example of his bipartisanship is keeping Gates as SecDefense.

I heard a WTF idea that he may make concessions to the minority Republican senators so that his economic stimulus plan passes by 80 votes. The fact that I didn't dismiss it as untrue because I think Obama really wants to be bipartisan.

I am afraid that he will try to hard to reach across the aisle and not investigate his predecessor and not hold his administration accountable(justice) for their well documented crimes. Is my fear unfounded? Does anybody have evidence that Obama will hold Bush Admin. accountable or will he let them be in the name of bipartisanship? I hope I am wrong.

[Marley23]

Sorry, he's not gonna do it. Even if it's the right thing, the precedent is questionable and particularly at this time, it's not something he's going to spend a lot of energy on - and that's what it would require. On top of all that, if he did that, a Republican Congress or future president would do the same thing to him and he's not going to want that.

I think Obama's already said he's not going down this road, at least in terms of prosecuting interrogators who used torture.

[Rand Rover]

I am afraid that he will try to hard to reach across the aisle and not investigate his predecessor and not hold his administration accountable(justice) for their well documented crimes.

:rolleyes:

[JohnT]

I am afraid that he will try to hard to reach across the aisle and not investigate his predecessor and not hold his administration accountable(justice) for their well documented crimes. Is my fear unfounded?

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :rolleyes:

Obama isn't going to investigate Bush's "crimes" for the same reason any sane person entering the WH wouldn't - 'cause they open up the likelihood of exposing themselves to the same idiotic witchhunt tactics that you're proposing, once he leaves the WH.

[Invisible Chimp]

Now future presidents can commit wrongdoing with impunity because Congress and future administrations won't hold them accountable because that would start a "withhhunt" precedent.:rolleyes:

Clinton's impeachment didn't start a never ending string of impeachments, even though Bush had reason to be impeached. Government must be held accountable for it's actions or it will trample the rights of it's people and we can't always wait or rely on elections. Government must self-police a little bit.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

:rolleyes:
My grandma used to say if you keep doing that your eyes will get stuck like that.

[Oakminster]

I am afraid that he will try to hard to reach across the aisle and not investigate his predecessor and not hold his administration accountable(justice) for their well documented crimes.

I'd like to see a cite to the evidence of these well documented crimes, as well as relevant controlling legal authority.

[Der Trihs]

Now future presidents can commit wrongdoing with impunity because Congress and future administrations won't hold them accountable because that would start a "withhhunt" precedent.:rolleyes:Exactly. The message being sent to future Republican Presidents is that they might as well grab for all the power and profit they can, trample any right they feel like because the Democrats will ALWAYS cave in and suck up to them. That there is NO consequences to their actions. It's a major reason why America is becoming ever more corrupt and fascistic; it's a major reason why I have no long term hope for this country.

[Sam Stone]

A president is only going to be held responsible for his 'crimes' if they are personal - taking bribes, paying bribes, committing perjury, breaking into an opponent's campaign office...

You will never see a President go after another President for 'crimes' committed by the state, because that will open up every President to charges from the opposition when they get into power. Presidents make life-and-death choices every day, and sometimes the decisions are very questionable. Some people have demanded that Kissinger stand trial for his 'crimes', or Bomber Harris in the U.K. But it's just not going to happen.

Some people on the right were calling for criminal investigations of Clinton over Waco. I'm sure some people wanted to make hay over the fact that he defied the U.N. in Kosovo. Or perhaps for the bombings in Sudan. I remember some people claiming that he was 'selling' the White House because it appeared that big donors could buy a night in the Lincoln Bedroom. How would you feel about that?

Also, you think that Bush committed these 'crimes', but at least 30% of the country, who still support Bush, do not. And I'll bet that a good percentage of the people who do not approve of his job still don't believe that what he did rose to the level of criminal conduct. So Obama would be going after a President who a majority of the country believes has committed no crime. How do you think that would go over?

Frankly, the only people calling for Bush to be charged with these 'crimes' is the wingnut left. It's just not a credible option.

[DSeid]

The last thing this country needs is to be distracted by an inevitably hyperpartisan and divisive investigation into crimes committed Bush and company.

This country has more important things to do right now.

[squeegee]

I'm not on the "wingnut left" (whoever the hell that is supposed to be), but I think that after all the secrecy, all the whispered rumors about what was done with illegal spying, with torture, with a lot of uncovered "crimes", a Truth and reconciliation commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_commission) would be a very good step forward in putting the last eight years behind us without the cries of "witch hunt".

[elucidator]

I think we're headed down the ol' road again, the one about how there isn't any proof of crimes, therefore there is no need for any investigation which might uncover proof of crimes.

We might be better served by a truth seeking committee under rule of perjury: you must testify, and you are immune from prosecution so long as you testify fully and truthfully.

Usually, I'm all about the truth and justice, but the truth is more important. And what "justice" is possible, what sentence commensurate. For instance, if what I've read about Jose Padilla is true, that he has been driven bonkers by deprivation and isolation, what is the crime? We can readily see the wrong, but what specific statute speaks of malicious mind-fucking?

No, I don't want any trials, I simply want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but. Then let the people decide.

If they got a story to tell us how the evil terrorist knew where the nuclear anthrax bond was ticking down, and Jack Bauer ripped out a few fingernails and thus saved Disneyland....let it be told.

But I also want to hear about the simple dumfuk camel jockey who got turned in by his brother-in-law for $5,000 U.S.., and doesn't know C-4 from a see saw.

Maybe we can't have justice, but its no reason we can't have truth.

[Alex_Dubinsky]

Even if Barack Obama were not a Democrat and a pussy, he won't really be able to launch an investigation without enthusiasm for it on all levels of American society and United States bureaucracy. This is absolutely lacking.

What he may be able to do is slowly build up this enthusiasm over years. But he won't.


It's sad, because the truth is obvious. Bush, Cheney, and Co manipulated the intelligence services to produce lies about Saddam Hussein. They created the war, then maliciously fucked up the reconstruction. The goal was simply money. The horrible aftermath raised the price of oil and created a large market for the defense contractors. What's ironic is you don't even need to finger hidden benefactors pulling strings. Bush and Cheney are literally top representatives of the oil and defense industries.

What they've done isn't vague "fallible judgements in the name of US interests" that America unjustly defends in its previous leaders. It is simple corruption.

[Little Nemo]

I'm willing to let Bush go free with the punishment he's earned - complete public scorn. The irony is that his conservative soulmates will be denouncing him ten times harder than liberals will in an effort to distance themselves from him.

But what I would like is a nonpartisan investigation to bring sordid secrets out in the light so they can wither in the sunlight. Something like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa - public confessions and exposure of crimes and malfeasance in exchange for amnesty.

[The Second Stone]

The ancient Athenians and Romans, from whom we have borrowed most of our civilization, have gone down the prosecuting road before. The regular Athenian practice of having an accounting didn't cause much problems, but prosecuting the bad guys who abused power almost always led to civil war for both the Athenians and the Romans. Having them run off to other countries (as in the case of Alcibiades and Themistocles and being set up in style by the Persian King turned out much better.

I wouldn't mind a commission with the power to compel testimony under pain of contempt to document all the abuses, but it would be a bad idea to center the country's attention on this for the next five, ten or twenty years. Now if one of the idiots happens to step into a foreign jurisdiction that wants to prosecute or extradite, then that is another matter.

[Bryan Ekers]

As I understand the American system, it's the job of Congress to bring a President to heel, not the President's successor.

[Bender44]

A president is only going to be held responsible for his 'crimes' if they are personal - taking bribes, paying bribes, committing perjury, breaking into an opponent's campaign office...

You will never see a President go after another President for 'crimes' committed by the state, because that will open up every President to charges from the opposition when they get into power. Presidents make life-and-death choices every day, and sometimes the decisions are very questionable. Some people have demanded that Kissinger stand trial for his 'crimes', or Bomber Harris in the U.K. But it's just not going to happen.

Some people on the right were calling for criminal investigations of Clinton over Waco. I'm sure some people wanted to make hay over the fact that he defied the U.N. in Kosovo. Or perhaps for the bombings in Sudan. I remember some people claiming that he was 'selling' the White House because it appeared that big donors could buy a night in the Lincoln Bedroom. How would you feel about that?

Also, you think that Bush committed these 'crimes', but at least 30% of the country, who still support Bush, do not. And I'll bet that a good percentage of the people who do not approve of his job still don't believe that what he did rose to the level of criminal conduct. So Obama would be going after a President who a majority of the country believes has committed no crime. How do you think that would go over?

Frankly, the only people calling for Bush to be charged with these 'crimes' is the wingnut left. It's just not a credible option.



Bolding mine.

People did go after Clinton for that. Not because he defied the UN, which isn't a crime in and of itself, but because he defied the House of Representatives. Read CAMPBELL v. CLINTON, 203 F.3rd 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

As far as for the rest of your post, it would be nice if there was some mechanism to hold the President (any President, mind you) accountable for their extra-constitutional misdeeds. Rightly or wrongly, it probably can't or won't ever happen.

[Lantern]

Obviously a partisan witchhunt won't and shouldn't happen. However there is a large middle ground between that and doing nothing. For example Congress or Obama could set up a bi-partisan commission led by someone like Volcker to investigate abuses and make recommendation. As suggested above the Truth and Reconciliation Commision could offer a model.

[clairobscur]

I'm not on the "wingnut left" (whoever the hell that is supposed to be), but I think that after all the secrecy, all the whispered rumors about what was done with illegal spying, with torture, with a lot of uncovered "crimes", a Truth and reconciliation commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_commission) would be a very good step forward in putting the last eight years behind us without the cries of "witch hunt".



The USA is stable. It doesn't need such a thing. If crimes were committed, they can be prosecuted and punished without risking a civil war.

[clairobscur]

The last thing this country needs is to be distracted by an inevitably hyperpartisan and divisive investigation into crimes committed Bush and company.

This country has more important things to do right now.



In a democracy, I can't think of anything more important than investigating and punishing crimes committed by the country's government and public authorities, except maybe if the country is on the verge of collapse.

[Der Trihs]

The last thing this country needs is to be distracted by an inevitably hyperpartisan and divisive investigation into crimes committed Bush and company.

This country has more important things to do right now.And in another Presidential cycle or two, when there's another Republican President in office, he'll do the same things as Bush or worse, building on what Bush has already done. After all, he'll know there's no penalty for doing so. And things will get that much worse.

When WILL the time come to hold Bush or any other Republican President accountable ? For anything ? Ever ?

[DSeid]

In a democracy, I can't think of anything more important than investigating and punishing crimes committed by the country's government and public authorities, except maybe if the country is on the verge of collapse.
I can.

Avoiding a full blown depression, minimizing a serious recession, providing for at least near universal health care, doing something significant about global warming, moving towards more energy independence, improving our educational capabilities and outcomes, getting out of Iraq without causing even more harm as we go, respecting the privacy rights of our citizens, providing security for our citizens, preventing future abuses and crimes by public officials ...... all of them and more.

[Shodan]

It's sad, because the truth is obvious. Bush, Cheney, and Co manipulated the intelligence services to produce lies about Saddam Hussein. They created the war, then maliciously fucked up the reconstruction. The goal was simply money. The horrible aftermath raised the price of oil and created a large market for the defense contractors. What's ironic is you don't even need to finger hidden benefactors pulling strings. Bush and Cheney are literally top representatives of the oil and defense industries.The other major problem with the OP's idea is the above is the kind of thing you would have to prove.

Congress already investigated the idea that Bush and Co. manipulated the intelligence, and kept finding that what Bush believed was generally supported by the intelligence.

Nobody in their right mind really believes the kind of "no blood for oil" crap printed above, and a Congress that tries to investigate it with an approval rating less than half that of Bush is going to wind up looking even more stupid than they already do.

Cripes, get over it. You won the fucking election. Now we will see if St. Obama can lead us all to the Promised Land. Or is he another hack politician from the corrupt state of Illinois.

That is a more interesting question than hashing over "Bosh lied about Irag" for the zillionth time.

Regards,
Shodan

[John Mace]

As far as for the rest of your post, it would be nice if there was some mechanism to hold the President (any President, mind you) accountable for their extra-constitutional misdeeds. Rightly or wrongly, it probably can't or won't ever happen.
Two words: Impeachment.

It can be done after the president leaves office, too.

[John Mace]

I heard a WTF idea that he may make concessions to the minority Republican senators so that his economic stimulus plan passes by 80 votes. The fact that I didn't dismiss it as untrue because I think Obama really wants to be bipartisan.

Oh, and regarding this... There is no way the Dems (even Obama) are going to pass the so-called economic stimulus package by themselves. It has nothing to do with bipartisanship-- they don't want to be saddled with 100% of the blame if it doesn't work. The Republicans would be doing the same thing, btw.

[DSeid]

Now we will see if St. Obama can lead us all to the Promised Land. Or is he another hack politician from the corrupt state of Illinois. I'd to file a discrimination lawsuit please. On behalf of "the middle". It's being excluded.

No saint, no hack. The best person who ran and someone who is not powerful enough to accomplish much of a very full agenda in the toxic political environment that some here would desire to create.

As to what his plans are - we had a thread about this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=463997&highlight=obama+Bush+impeach) back in April after which it had been noted that Obama saidWhat I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I've said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it.(Bolding mine)

So he's on record. AG to review what is there and if there is extant evidence of consciously breaking the law and covering it up - well pursue it. But interpret the edge between dumb policy and crime erring on it being just stupidity.

[RickJay]

Now future presidents can commit wrongdoing with impunity because Congress and future administrations won't hold them accountable because that would start a "withhhunt" precedent.:rolleyes:

Clinton's impeachment didn't start a never ending string of impeachments, even though Bush had reason to be impeached.
Honest question; Impeached for what?

If you're going to impeach him for causing people to die in IRaq, why on earth do you think this is a new precedent? Lyndon B. Johnson was probably responsible for killing two million people in Vietnam. Reagan pulled stunts, Bush invaded Panama, Clinton had missiles shot into apartment buildings, so on and so forth. What conceivable justification could there be for charging Bush with a crime when the last 42 Presidents haven't been held to the same standard?

[BMax]

I can.

Avoiding a full blown depression, minimizing a serious recession, providing for at least near universal health care, doing something significant about global warming, moving towards more energy independence, improving our educational capabilities and outcomes, getting out of Iraq without causing even more harm as we go, respecting the privacy rights of our citizens, providing security for our citizens, preventing future abuses and crimes by public officials ...... all of them and more.
A lot of those problems were caused by the policies of BushCo. Nobody but the NeoCons wanted to invade Iraq and put Afghanistan on the back burner. The Bush admin & the republican congress have been against sustainable energy, they've weakened the EPA, they were against the Kyoto Protocol (which wouldn't have solved Global Warming, but it was a step in the right direction), Hell they even hired "scientists" to challenge evidence for Global Warming and imply that it's a hoax, They were against Universal Health coverage, the Patriot Act trampled the privacy rights of our citizens, Gonzalez and Ashcroft were corrupt attorneys general and stacked the Justice Department with loyal stooges while firing democrats. The housing finance crisis came about from faulty loans which wouldn't have been made if the protections put in place under FDR's watch hadn't been repealed. The Bush administration and the Republican congress caused those problems you want to solve.

In other words, we can't fix the mess that the Oil & defense contractor industries made with their little adventure for profit in the Middle East if we try to prosecute them for doing it in the first place?

The Republicans will just take more from us every time they get elected if the Democrats don't stand up to them, take the money back and throw someone in jail.

We already have whitehouse staffers writing tell-all books alleging that Bush told them to manipulate the intelligence to support his position. We need to investigate Cheney's profits from Halliburton.

Just because some republicans say "everyone else does it" doesn't make that a fact, nor does it make the routine Republican abuse of power acceptable.

[squeegee]

The USA is stable. It doesn't need such a thing. If crimes were committed, they can be prosecuted and punished without risking a civil war.

Say what? Who said civil war?

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Obama should focus on being the best President that we in the USA need right now. As much as it'd be satisfying to see all of the shit of the Bush administration corrected by him, he doesn't want to spend political capital doing it. He wants to spend it on making the country better, so that's what he'll do.

Now if non-involved parties have the power to do so, then he probably also wouldn't do much to stop it. Unfortunately the parts of the government that would take up such cases would likely be under his control.

Maybe people can start filing criminal suits against the Bush Administration? I have no idea if this is possible or not, but it seems like a pretty good way to get some justice. I wouldn't doubt that there are a few people out there that can provide egregious examples of Bush and Cheney's unconstitutional overreaching of power.

The risk is, of course, that we will be doomed to repeat this and elect another guy of a similar mold (Sarah Palin is an example). A nice criminal investigation of the Bush admin would do wonders on that front, airing all of the dirty laundry, but unfortunately we are in too much deep shit at the moment for Obama to waste political capital on doing it. He's taking a bit of a gamble. He's thinking that he'll be able to achieve the same effect by sheer contrast between his administration and that of Bush's. Time will obviously tell. I'm sure Obama wants to go around rooting out every bit of incompetence and explain what is wrong with it, but at the very least he's appointing people that are a vast break from the thugs that Bush had hired.

[Bender44]

Two words: Impeachment.

It can be done after the president leaves office, too.

Yes, but impeachment is a political mechanism that is difficult to obtain and correctly so. I was talking more of taking a legal avenue through the courts.

[Liberal]

Obama should focus on being the best President that we in the USA need right now. As much as it'd be satisfying to see all of the shit of the Bush administration corrected by him, he doesn't want to spend political capital doing it. He wants to spend it on making the country better, so that's what he'll do.Very well said. My heart goes out to him for presiding, as he will, over the biggest bunch of whiners, cry babies, and spoiled brats the nation has ever seen. I'm glad he has such a good sense of humor, and is a good dad.

[Ersatz Shmoe]

I'd like to see a cite to the evidence of these well documented crimes, as well as relevant controlling legal authority.

The vice-president admitted that waterboarding was officially signed off on by the White House (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003323549_cheney26.html).

After WWII: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html) "After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding."

All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding) (of which the US is one) have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. This was affirmed by Saadi v. Italy in which the European Court of Human Rights, on February 28, 2008, upheld the absolute nature of the torture ban by ruling that international law permits no exceptions to it.

Even if the president and vice president are not accountable for authorizing torture, "The New York Times reported on July 11, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin), that 'Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes.'"

That's one issue, without going into the fact that bypassing the FISA court was a violation of the 4th Amendment, holding prisoners of war at Gitmo without the right to a trial or having a lawyer present is at least in violation of the principle of the 5th and 6th Amendments (legal evasiveness notwithstanding), and your standard, garden variety corruption with respect to granting government contracts to cronies with no oversight, etc.

Even if we're not talking about impeaching Bush, there should be investigations, and if the evidence is found, prosecutions. This is necessary in a state governed by the rule of law.

[John Mace]

Yes, but impeachment is a political mechanism that is difficult to obtain and correctly so. I was talking more of taking a legal avenue through the courts.

The current legal system can do that. Obama's AG can investigate Bush as much as he/she wants. What people are saying is that it won't happen for actions he took as president, and they explained why. So that brings us back to impeachment.

[Bender44]

The current legal system can do that. Obama's AG can investigate Bush as much as he/she wants. What people are saying is that it won't happen for actions he took as president, and they explained why. So that brings us back to impeachment.

The current legal system can do that, but the courts will more likely than not refuse to hear the case. Political question doctrine and what not.

Which also brings us back to impeachment.

[BrainGlutton]

Be afraid. Be very afraid. :rolleyes:

Obama isn't going to investigate Bush's "crimes" for the same reason any sane person entering the WH wouldn't - 'cause they open up the likelihood of exposing themselves to the same idiotic witchhunt tactics that you're proposing, once he leaves the WH.

So much the better! Let every administration make all its decisions aware of the threat of being investigated/prosecuted by the next one! Can you think of a better way to keep them honest?

[BrainGlutton]

As far as for the rest of your post, it would be nice if there was some mechanism to hold the President (any President, mind you) accountable for their extra-constitutional misdeeds.

Try this. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462)

[BrainGlutton]

Very well said. My heart goes out to him for presiding, as he will, over the biggest bunch of whiners, cry babies, and spoiled brats the nation has ever seen. I'm glad he has such a good sense of humor, and is a good dad.

Are you referring to Congress, or to the whole American people?

[Liberal]

I'd say most of one, and a big chunk of the other.

[Vox Imperatoris]

I'm amazed that the OP actually thought this was on the radar at any point. AFAIK, Obama's never said anything about doing it.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Odesio]

Exactly. The message being sent to future Republican Presidents is that they might as well grab for all the power and profit they can, trample any right they feel like because the Democrats will ALWAYS cave in and suck up to them. That there is NO consequences to their actions. It's a major reason why America is becoming ever more corrupt and fascistic; it's a major reason why I have no long term hope for this country.


That's the same message they've been getting for the last 5 years from the Democrats. Can't really put this all on Obama.

[Odesio]

So much the better! Let every administration make all its decisions aware of the threat of being investigated/prosecuted by the next one! Can you think of a better way to keep them honest?

It worked so well for the Romans!

[BrainGlutton]

From The Land Beyond the Blow, (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13541/13541-8.txt) by Ambrose Bierce:

Arriving at the capital of the country after many incredible adventures, I was promptly arrested by the police and taken before the Jumjum. He was an exceedingly affable person, and held office by appointment, "for life or fitness," as their laws express it. With one necessary exception all offices are appointive and the tenure of all except that is the same. The Panjandrum, or, as we should call him, King, is elected for a term of ten years, at the expiration of which he is shot. It is held that any man who has been so long in high authority will have committed enough sins and blunders to deserve death, even if none can be specifically proved.

[alphaboi867]

The current legal system can do that, but the courts will more likely than not refuse to hear the case. Political question doctrine and what not.

Which also brings us back to impeachment.

What's the point of impeaching Bush after he leaves office? All the Senate could do is; remove him from office (a moot point), or ban him from ever holding a federal office again. He's already ineligible for a third term (Praise be unto the 22nd Amendment, may it never be repealed) and I highly doubt he's ever going to run for Congress.

[E-Sabbath]

He could be appointed to the Supreme Court!

[JoeSki]

From The Land Beyond the Blow, (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13541/13541-8.txt) by Ambrose Bierce:

I've considered this quote you mentioned a bit in regards to our country. I like the idea, but can't but help think that it would make the White House appealing to only radicals and fundamentalists.

[BrainGlutton]

I've considered this quote you mentioned a bit in regards to our country. I like the idea, but can't but help think that it would make the White House appealing to only radicals and fundamentalists.

Furthermore, there's not much incentive to be honest while in office if you know you'll be put to death regardless.

[Oakminster]

The vice-president admitted that waterboarding was officially signed off on by the White House (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003323549_cheney26.html).


Not in the article you linked, he didn't.


Even if the president and vice president are not accountable for authorizing torture, "The New York Times reported on July 11, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin), that 'Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes.'


Refresh my memory. What exactly is the extent of the Red Cross authority to bring criminal charges?



Even if we're not talking about impeaching Bush, there should be investigations, and if the evidence is found, prosecutions. This is necessary in a state governed by the rule of law.

You've yet to demonstrate any reasonable basis for investigations. Seems like you'd prefer to just skip the formalities, and jump straight to sentencing.

[clairobscur]

I can.

Avoiding a full blown depression, minimizing a serious recession, providing for at least near universal health care, doing something significant about global warming, moving towards more energy independence, improving our educational capabilities and outcomes, getting out of Iraq without causing even more harm as we go, respecting the privacy rights of our citizens, providing security for our citizens, preventing future abuses and crimes by public officials ...... all of them and more.

And I disagree with any of these things (I had the economical and social issues in mind when I wrote my post) except the last one (preventing future abuse) being as important. We can't allow public authorities to circumvent the law or attack our liberties. We can't let their criminal activities go unpunished, if we don't want to live in an elective dictatorship.

You're close to saying : as long as we're prosperous, the law of the land can take a backseat.

[clairobscur]

Say what? Who said civil war?

What I mean is that this kind of commissions is useful either when the crimes were committed on such a scale and/or for so long that prosecuting them all is a pipe dream or when the country is so unstable and divided that going after the culprits would seriously threaten its stability.

Since the USA isn't in such a situation, there's no need for a reconciliation commission to replace actual prosecution of crimes.

[clairobscur]

Very well said. My heart goes out to him for presiding, as he will, over the biggest bunch of whiners, cry babies, and spoiled brats the nation has ever seen. I'm glad he has such a good sense of humor, and is a good dad.

Honestly, I'm completely amazed by your discourse about Mr Obama. For some time, you've been sounding as if he had either paid you a huge amount of money specifically to spread his word on this board or hypnotized you. :confused:



Sorry for the hijack.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Ersatz Shmoe;10675168That's one issue, without going into the fact that bypassing the FISA court was a violation of the 4th Amendment, holding prisoners of war at Gitmo without the right to a trial or having a lawyer present is at least in violation of the principle of the 5th and 6th Amendments (legal evasiveness notwithstanding), and your standard, garden variety corruption with respect to granting government contracts to cronies with no oversight, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Remind me -- what's the penalty for violation of the Fourth Amendment? How many years in prison is that again?

And where, precisely, is that penalty laid out?

Or did you just want to make up the penalty as we go?

[squeegee]

What I mean is that this kind of commissions is useful either when the crimes were committed on such a scale and/or for so long that prosecuting them all is a pipe dream or when the country is so unstable and divided that going after the culprits would seriously threaten its stability.

Since the USA isn't in such a situation, there's no need for a reconciliation commission to replace actual prosecution of crimes.

And I'd counter that the US is indeed in this situation, at least your first description. The crimes have been on such a large scale that prosecuting them is indeed impractical. There seems to be little political will to even investigate the scope of the civil rights crimes. There are "cooler heads" in this very thread that counsel this could never happen.

A truth commission defuses much of this problem, once all the parties understand the intent: the goal is the truth of what actually happened, so light can be projected on these crimes, and historical revisionism cannot (or hopefully would not) happen. Witnesses are given blanket immunity to encourage bad actors to come clean. I submit this is an important thing to have happen: shed light on the darkness of these illegal acts, so our country can finally know what occurred. The alternative is to probably never know what took place and have the memory of these crimes disappeared.

[Little Nemo]

The purpose of a government is to actually govern the country not to waste its time dividing up into two teams and competing against itself.

[The Second Stone]

Remind me -- what's the penalty for violation of the Fourth Amendment? How many years in prison is that again?

And where, precisely, is that penalty laid out?

Or did you just want to make up the penalty as we go?


The penalty is that the Constitution falls into disrespect.



Sir Thomas More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.

William Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do?

William Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

Sir Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?

Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.

If I could write anywhere near as good an argument, I would not quote A Man for All Seasons. But I can't.

[tim314]

I'd rather see Obama actually accomplish some of the things on his agenda rather than wasting his time and political capital trying to "bring the Bush administration to justice."

[Vox Imperatoris]

The penalty is that the Constitution falls into disrespect.

Which carries a punishment of 5-20?

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Liberal]

Honestly, I'm completely amazed by your discourse about Mr Obama. For some time, you've been sounding as if he had either paid you a huge amount of money specifically to spread his word on this board or hypnotized you.Evidently, you've missed some of my postings, like here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10669449&postcount=27) for example, where I allow for a metaphysical possibility that Obama's position on the DTV issue may not be optimal. I think the only difference between my posts and the posts of others is that my criticisms are not unfair, unfounded, or uninformed.

[xenophon41]

"Will Obama choose unity over justice...?"

Both are unattainable in an absolute sense, and they are mutually unsupportable. And O is a pragmatist. We can only hope he gives appropriate weight to those ideals he's going to talk about in his inaugural address. If he does, he'll sacrifice some unity to repudiate a few of the activities of the outgoing administration which are antithetical to them.

Maybe he can do that without prosecutions, and my bet is if he takes the path of repudiation, he'll try to avoid unnecessary recrimination. Which means, depending on how you look at it, we'll either get raisins in our thin gruel, or we'll have to have fewer sprinkles on our ice cream than we'd like.


(Liberal):
...where I allow for a metaphysical possibility that Obama's position on the DTV issue may not be optimal...
Cool. ;)

[Hamlet]

Sorry, he's not gonna do it. Even if it's the right thing, the precedent is questionable and particularly at this time, it's not something he's going to spend a lot of energy on - and that's what it would require. On top of all that, if he did that, a Republican Congress or future president would do the same thing to him and he's not going to want that.If Obama did the things this administration is believed to have done, I would be the first in line agreeing with the Republicans to investigate him.

[BrainGlutton]

The purpose of a government is to actually govern the country not to waste its time dividing up into two teams and competing against itself.

One-party rule is even worse, you know.

[villa]

This isn't a Democrat vs Republican thing. It's a Legislative branch vs Executive branch debate.

If Bush's alleged crimes should be investigated, Congress should be doing it. White Houses don't investigate past regimes because each new regime thinks it can use the power stolen from the legislature better than the previous regime. And year after year Congress has shown itself willing to allow its power to be eroded.

[Snag]

Unless the citizenry pushes Obama and the congress to do so, they are unlikely to. We choose here how we want to be governed. I think it's a nonpartisan issue. I've been pleased to see some high profile Democratic politicians pushed out of power recently. I hope it keeps up as long as necessary.

[Captain Carrot]

Remind me -- what's the penalty for violation of the Fourth Amendment? How many years in prison is that again?

And where, precisely, is that penalty laid out?

Or did you just want to make up the penalty as we go?

Are you, a lawyer, seriously arguing that there should be no consequences for violating someone's Constitutional rights?

[Vox Imperatoris]

Are you, a lawyer, seriously arguing that there should be no consequences for violating someone's Constitutional rights?

No, he isn't. He's saying that you can't just make them up as you along if there is no written penalty for it, though. Can't you see that?

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Hamlet]

Are you, a lawyer, seriously arguing that there should be no consequences for violating someone's Constitutional rights?Bricker is speaking only of CRIMINAL prosecutions for violations of the 4th Amendment. Although I strongly suspect he is either ignoring or unaware of 18 USC 242.

18 USC 242 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html)

" Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any."

From the DOJ (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php)

[PerditaX]

That's one issue, without going into the fact that bypassing the FISA court was a violation of the 4th Amendment, holding prisoners of war at Gitmo without the right to a trial or having a lawyer present is at least in violation of the principle of the 5th and 6th Amendments (legal evasiveness notwithstanding), and your standard, garden variety corruption with respect to granting government contracts to cronies with no oversight, etc.



I wish somebody would take the time to explain to me why prisoners of war/enemy combatants (if they were arrested in error, because the "insurgents" were blending into the general population without uniforms, etc whose fault is that, anyway?) are entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution. I may be mistaken, but I always just assumed that those rights applied to U.S. citizens, not just any (ahem) Schmoe who turned up. The reason the Japanese internment was wrong was that the detainees were citizens!

I guess I also have a problem with the U.S. beating itself up for making Gitmo detainees uncomfortable. Does anybody remember what Iraqis did to our people? Daniel Perl, anyone? He was a journalist, for Pete's sake, and they sawed off his head with a dull knife. And filmed it and put it on TV.

*shrug* Whatever.

I'm not sure why I even bother, since I'll be shouted down anyway.

[ElvisL1ves]

They're under US custody and control, for one thing. For another, the Fifth Amendment says "any person", not "any citizen".

They also have rights under the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory and therefore subject to them. Except that, according to the Gonzalez memo, those are "quaint" and "obsolete".

Now, what does "what Iraqis did to our people" have to do with the Gitmo detainees? :dubious:

[Hamlet]

I wish somebody would take the time to explain to me why prisoners of war/enemy combatants (if they were arrested in error, because the "insurgents" were blending into the general population without uniforms, etc whose fault is that, anyway?) are entitled to rights under the U.S. Constitution. I may be mistaken, but I always just assumed that those rights applied to U.S. citizens, not just any (ahem) Schmoe who turned up. The reason the Japanese internment was wrong was that the detainees were citizens!Not all of them are entitled to all Constitutional rights. Detainees who are detained in the US or on US territory are entitled to, at least, challenge their detention through habeas corpus. The latest case on the issue is Boudemiene v. Bush. I guess I also have a problem with the U.S. beating itself up for making Gitmo detainees uncomfortable. Does anybody remember what Iraqis did to our people? Daniel Perl, anyone? He was a journalist, for Pete's sake, and they sawed off his head with a dull knife. And filmed it and put it on TV.I kinda want my country to be better than evil terrorists. Apparently, you don't. That's sad.
*shrug* Whatever.THAT is precisely what this administration has been counting on. A nice collective shrug so they don't have to worry about the consequences of their actions. That's sad.

I'm not sure why I even bother, since I'll be shouted down anyway.If you have an actual argument to make, cites to add, or intelligent rationale for your position, it can be a debate. But you, apparently, are happy just to play the "poor poor pitiful conservative me" card. That's sad too.

[Liberal]

Bricker is speaking only of CRIMINAL prosecutions for violations of the 4th Amendment. Although I strongly suspect he is either ignoring or unaware of 18 USC 242.

18 USC 242 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html)

" Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any."

From the DOJ (http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php)Excellent, Hamlet.

[PerditaX]

Not all of them are entitled to all Constitutional rights. Detainees who are detained in the US or on US territory are entitled to, at least, challenge their detention through habeas corpus. The latest case on the issue is Boudemiene v. Bush. I kinda want my country to be better than evil terrorists. Apparently, you don't. That's sad.
THAT is precisely what this administration has been counting on. A nice collective shrug so they don't have to worry about the consequences of their actions. That's sad.

If you have an actual argument to make, cites to add, or intelligent rationale for your position, it can be a debate. But you, apparently, are happy just to play the "poor poor pitiful conservative me" card. That's sad too.

This is exactly why I've been a member since 2005 and only made 268 posts. I'm by nature a peacemaker (or, as would be considered here, a wimp) and I don't like to get into arguments. I especially don't like to get into arguments with people who I *know* will do exactly what you just did - pounce on me just because I (apparently) am a conservative, and as a conservative am clearly In League with the Forces of Eeeeeeeeevil. I don't quite understand why defending the right of the U.S. to defend itself, and to make a moral distinction between depriving a person of sleep and depriving them of their HEAD is "not wanting my country to be better than evil terrorists." I resent the implication that I'm a pitiful person who is not worthy of being treated as an individual, but can be dismissed as one of "those people." This entire forum isn't about debates, it's "dogpile on the conservative and/or theistic and/or anyone who's not part of the "cool kids club." I'm not going to play this game anymore. How about a nice game of chess, Professor Falken?

As you were, folks.

[Little Nemo]

Quit being a martyr. Nobody's picking on you because you're a conservative.

But your argument that being arrested is sufficent proof of a crime is wrong. People can be arrested by mistake. That's why we're supposed to have trials. So that people who were arrested have a chance to defend themselves. I know it seems inconvenient but you might be arrested by mistake yourself someday and it will make a lot more sense then.

[Hamlet]

This is exactly why I've been a member since 2005 and only made 268 posts. I'm by nature a peacemaker (or, as would be considered here, a wimp) and I don't like to get into arguments. I especially don't like to get into arguments with people who I *know* will do exactly what you just did - pounce on me just because I (apparently) am a conservative, and as a conservative am clearly In League with the Forces of Eeeeeeeeevil.I didn't "pounce on you"" because you're a conservative, I pointed out what you were wrong about and invited you to further debate. You, instead, decided to play the victim. And you continue to do so. Good luck with that.
I don't quite understand why defending the right of the U.S. to defend itself, and to make a moral distinction between depriving a person of sleep and depriving them of their HEAD is "not wanting my country to be better than evil terrorists."It would help, if you are interested in actual debate, if you stuck with actual facts instead of making stuff up. No one in this thread has equated, as you do, lack of sleep, with brutal murder. I resent the implication that I'm a pitiful person who is not worthy of being treated as an individual, but can be dismissed as one of "those people.I didn't dismiss you, I pointed out the flaws in your ... well, lets generously call it an "argument".
This entire forum isn't about debates, it's "dogpile on the conservative and/or theistic and/or anyone who's not part of the "cool kids club." I'm not going to play this game anymore. How about a nice game of chess, Professor Falken?This is a debate forum. If you want to engage in intelligent debate, you have to expect people to disagree with you. If that makes you run away whining about being oppressed, I'm sorry.

[The Tooth]

They're under US custody and control, for one thing. For another, the Fifth Amendment says "any person", not "any citizen".

They also have rights under the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory and therefore subject to them. Except that, according to the Gonzalez memo, those are "quaint" and "obsolete".

Now, what does "what Iraqis did to our people" have to do with the Gitmo detainees? :dubious:

Or Daniel Pearl, who was killed in Pakistan.

[ElvisL1ves]

Was that supposed to be an answer of some kind?

[Vox Imperatoris]

Excellent, Hamlet.

Okay, so it looks like there is a law against violating the Fourth Amendment. Problem solved, if you can prove a violation to a jury beyond reasonable doubt.

I have a question though: why don't police who violate the Constitution get sentenced if there is a law against it? To my knowledge, the evidence just gets thrown out, and the police usually just get disciplined or fired.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[elucidator]

When America was still a gleam in Tom Paine's mind, torture was wrong. When the Constitution was ratified, it was still wrong. If, tomorrow, the Constitution is canceled by a signing statement from The Leader - it will be just as wrong. Indeed, if a special amendment to the Constitution permitting torture at the discretion of the President establishing legal innocence for anyone acting at his directon - it wouldn't be a bit better. We would simply be that much the worse.

[The Second Stone]

Which carries a punishment of 5-20?

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

Which carries the punishment against The People in that they don't have an entitlement to their rights when The Man comes after them. The People as a whole and non-infringed citizens don't have recourse (the aggreived prisoners perhaps have (or more rather had) habeas corpus writ rights which have narrowed tremendously over the years. If the constitution is not upheld with respect to the accused and the guilty, then the innocent are not in a position to say that they are entitled to at least what the accused and guilty get, because, after all, they are innocent. Well, innocent is a presumption, as I've discussed elsewhere. It's a meaningless presumption if it is only a legal technicality that everybody, including judges and juries, snicker at under their breath. It is a presumption that protects everybody, including the actual innocent, which is rarely even known.

[The Second Stone]

When America was still a gleam in Tom Paine's mind, torture was wrong. When the Constitution was ratified, it was still wrong. If, tomorrow, the Constitution is canceled by a signing statement from The Leader - it will be just as wrong. Indeed, if a special amendment to the Constitution permitting torture at the discretion of the President establishing legal innocence for anyone acting at his directon - it wouldn't be a bit better. We would simply be that much the worse.

You can amend the constitution all you want if you get enough people to go along with it, but that doesn't mean that actions such as torture or targeting civilians aren't fundamentally evil. Remember who came to power legally and had the legislature ratify each of his evil actions? Yep, that guy.

[The Tooth]

Was that supposed to be an answer of some kind?

It's supposed to be me pointing out the additional absurdity of PerditaX using the case of Daniel Pearl, who was killed in Pakistan, to justify the abuse directed at the mainly Afghani population of Gitmo.

[Dinsdale]

I truly despise Bush, much of his administration, and many of his practices/policies. But I am very hesitant to suggest that the new administration ought to investigate either Bush or his cronies. To a large extent, I think we get the government we deserve. Bush had a considerable track record when he was re-elected, and given a Republican majority in Congress through much of his stay.

I am not sure that I believe investigations/prosecutions by a successor administration are the desireable method for addressing questionable decisions or exercises of power by a predecessor. Moreover, I think such lengthy examinations can be costly and achieve little, distorting what actually occurred in the process.

I do believe, however, that an incoming administration ought to be able to initiate a very limited number of focussed investigations of specific situations. Instead of being aimed at punishing, such investigations would be aimed at preventing recurrences in the future. I think one obvious and appropriate target of such an investigation would be the apparent profitteering by private companies during the Iraq War and occupation, perhaps accompanied by investigation of the oversight - or lack thereof.

[Shodan]

No one in this thread has equated, as you do, lack of sleep, with brutal murder. Apart from you, no one did. You saidI kinda want my country to be better than evil terrorists. So apparently lack of sleep is equal to brutal murder.

Of course you also said this -Apparently, you don't.which is just as stupid and even more hateful, so I suppose it was a mistake in general to treat what you said seriously.

The usual barrage of ad hominems, false framings. strawmen and outright stupidity. By your definition, "intelligent debate".


Regards,
Shodan

[Hamlet]

Do you have something of substance to add, Shodan? I mean other than following me around and emphasizing your misunderstanding of my posts and baseless personal attacks? Maybe about the OP? Your feelings on truth commissions or prosecutions? Or maybe both? What do you think about prosecuting FISA violations? The torture statute. Anything?

[Gangster Octopus]

I see a lot of "What crimes?" and I agree. I think a Truth Commission would be an excellent way to clear Bush's good name, don't you agree?

[Vox Imperatoris]

Which carries the punishment against The People in that they don't have an entitlement to their rights when The Man comes after them. The People as a whole and non-infringed citizens don't have recourse (the aggreived prisoners perhaps have (or more rather had) habeas corpus writ rights which have narrowed tremendously over the years. If the constitution is not upheld with respect to the accused and the guilty, then the innocent are not in a position to say that they are entitled to at least what the accused and guilty get, because, after all, they are innocent. Well, innocent is a presumption, as I've discussed elsewhere. It's a meaningless presumption if it is only a legal technicality that everybody, including judges and juries, snicker at under their breath. It is a presumption that protects everybody, including the actual innocent, which is rarely even known.

But you can't sentence people for crimes against which there is no law. I can't just bring you into court tomorrow and have you sentenced you to death for "hating America", even if the jury agrees with me. The Constitution does not provide a penalty for its violation, so you can't charge anyone with violating it unless there is also a law specifying the punishment. "Endangering the People" is a consequence of the crime, not the punishment for the guilty party; your argument doesn't even make sense. If "endangering the People" were the only punishment, then the big bad evil guys would have no problem with it.

It's a resolved issue anyway, since, as Hamlet pointed out, there is a law against it.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

ETA: If Hitler himself ran for office and won, you still can't charge him in court with any crimes until he actually starts violating laws that carry punishments (although you can impeach him, of course). To do so would wreak all kinds of havoc with the rule of law.

[Shodan]

Do you have something of substance to add, Shodan? I mean other than following me around and emphasizing your misunderstanding of my posts and baseless personal attacks? Maybe about the OP? Your feelings on truth commissions or prosecutions? Or maybe both? What do you think about prosecuting FISA violations? The torture statute. Anything?

So you didn't actually read the thread, IOW. You might want to try that - it might make your post a little less imbecilic.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hamlet]

So you didn't actually read the thread, IOW. You might want to try that - it might make your post a little less imbecilic.

Regards,
ShodanLook, I got it. You don't like me and enjoy making stuff to in an attempt to make me look bad. Point taken. I don't mind, whatever gets you through the night.

Now that that's out of the way, can you actually discuss the OP? Me, I think there should be investigations and, if there is enough evidence, prosecutions. I don't think justice would be served by simply calling a do-over for any crimes. To me it smacks of whitewashing over the problems and the lack of accountability won't do anything to stop these things from happening in the future.

I liked this quote: "Of course all this is not the language of the law either. It is the language of self-fulfilling prophecy. With each successive recitation that there is no political will, the political will dissipates. With each repetition of the mantra that Americans just want to turn the page on the past eight years, Americans feel ever better about turning the page.

And why wouldn’t we? We aren’t merely forgiving Mr. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney (who admitted in December to approving torture techniques) and others for their actions. We are also forgiving ourselves. We are telling ourselves that what happened at Abu Ghraib is behind us, and that what happened at C.I.A. black sites is over. We are telling ourselves that bad people did bad things under bad circumstances, but that it’s better to forgive and forget, that we are really truly sorry and it won’t happen again. We sound like a nation of drunks after a bender. We are full of good intentions, but unwilling to hold ourselves to account."

From this opinion piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/opinion/11lithwick.html?_r=1).

Of course, the biggest problem is the investigation itself. The legal wrangling it would take to get actual evidence would take years. This administration has shown it has no problem closing ranks, lying, and using any legal outs they can, to try and fight disclosure of actual information. I don't think that's going to stop anytime soon. So the road to investigation and prosecution would be a long one. But I still like it better than just pretending it didn't happen or that it doesn't matter. That only makes it easier the next time.

[ElvisL1ves]

It's worth remembering that current treaties provide for universal jurisdiction for war crimes. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the lower tier of enablers are at risk of being arrested and taken to The Hague for their roles in creating the Iraq war, if they set foot in any other signatory nation. Rumsfeld, in fact, was already indicted in Germany.

[Hamlet]

Rumsfeld, in fact, was already indicted in Germany.I'm pretty sure this is false. My recollection and bit of research seemed to indicate that German's head prosecutor refused to file any charges against Rumsfeld. There is no indictment. There may be civil cases, but I can't find any evidence of a criminal indictment. Supposedly, the group that wanted the indictment were going to try Spain next.

[ElvisL1ves]

Looks like you're more right than I am (http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/german-war-crimes-complaint-against-donald-rumsfeld,-et-al.). The German prosecutor's decision not to file is under appeal.

There were a number of stories that jumped the gun in announcing his actual indictment, or at least misinterpreted the formal filing of a complaint as being an indictment.

[Shodan]

Look, I got it.
No, I don't think you do. You don't like me and enjoy making stuff to in an attempt to make me look bad. Well, no here as well. I don't actually dislike you. Does the Road Runner dislike the coyote? And I haven't made anything up - your post really and truly was imbecilic. And not because of anything I did - it was you that made it so.

Because - well, look here -Now that that's out of the way, can you actually discuss the OP?Remember how, a couple posts ago, you said the same thing, and I said you should read the thread? I'll repeat that, because if you do, then you will realize, probably, exactly why your post is so silly.

Or perhaps not, and then you can fulminate and throw around ad hominems and continue on with business as usual.

Regards,
Shodan

[Hamlet]

Nothing of substance about FISA? Nothing about torture? Nothing about our treaty obligations? Nothing about truth commissions vs. prosecutions? The stuff in the OP? Just more of the same personal attacks and substanceless crap about Bush didn't lie, complete with your usual potshots at the next President?

Figures.

Why you start a nice pit thread about me, so you don't waste my and everyone else's time in this thread?

[Shodan]

The choice on how you spend your time is yours. For instance, I note you are so pressed for time that you forgot the word "don't" (presumably).

Unless this is International Speak Like A Caveman Day, and I missed it.

Anyway, as is often the case, you are mistaken. The personal attacks that you think you see don't actually exist, which is why I not start nice Pit thread. Oogar not have desire to start nice Pit thread. Oogar like nice debate. Oogar like making fun of your post. Oogar think that better use of time that rehashing the same warmed over crapola. That why Oogar say so in first post to the thread, which you not read until Oogar tell you to, twice.

You did read it, didn't you?

Regards,
Oogar

[Hamlet]

As I said, whatever gets you through the night Shodan. If you get around to getting past your obsession with me and want to debate FISA, torture, Guantanamo, our obligations under our treaties, Padilla, or something other than what I've already pointed out, let me know.